STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides, with the consent of both sides, this appeal is being disposed of finally even at this stage.

(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the State of Jharkhand and its forest officials, the respondents in WPC No. 1206 of 2002. WPC No. 1206 of 2002 was filed by the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein claiming to be the owner of a truck bearing No. BR -18M -1568. The said vehicle was found carrying illicit timber and was detained by the forest authorities. The driver, who was in the vehicle, on being confronted, stated that the timber was illicitly purchased. It was found that he had no valid papers for transit of the timber. Therefore, the timber was confiscated and a proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle that carried the illicit timber, was initiated. The owner of the vehicle, the writ petitioner, was given notice. He filed a show cause stating that he was not aware of illicit timber being carried in his vehicle and that he had given the vehicle for the use of one Sanju Sharma and Kishan Lal Sharma and it was probably at their instance that timber was being carried in the vehicle. Thus, he sought to distance himself from the alleged illicit transport of timber. The original authority, the Divisional Forest Officer, held that the owner of the vehicle has not discharged the burden cast on him in the light of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act as amended in Bihar and that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated. On an appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle, the appellate authority, even without issuing notice and hearing the State, proceeded to set aside the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, ordering confiscation. The Forest department took up the matter in revision before the revisional authority, the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand. The revisional authority, on a consideration of the relevant aspects, including Section 52 of the Act as amended in Bihar and the decision of Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. v. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors., AIR 19S6 SC 328, came to the conclusion that the Divisional Forest Officer was fully justified in ordering confiscation of the vehicle, since the owner of the vehicle has not established the elements required to be established by him under Section 52(5) of the Act, thus the revisional authority, by order dated 26.3.2002, set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority.

(3.) CHALLENGING the decision of the learned Single Judge, learned Government counsel submitted that the learned Single Jude has lost sight of Section 52(5) of the Act. He also referred to the decisions of this Court in Bahadur Bedia v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2003 (4) JCR 108 (Jhr) and in Dilip Kumar Mahato v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2003 (4) JCR 174 (Jhr). It was submitted that even going by the show cause filed by the writ petitioner, the vehicle was permitted by him to be used by one Sanju Sharma and Kishanlal Sharma and even if at their instance, the driver has used the vehicle for transport of illicit timber, the owner cannot disown liability, unless he proves the elements contemplated by Section 52(5) of the Act. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has clearly erred in interfering with the well considered order of the revisional authority.