DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Ramgarh -respondent No. 2 to release his truck bearing registration No. JH -10V -8551 seized in connection with Confiscation Case No. 51 of 2013 arising out of Gola P.S. Case No. 8 of 2013 for the alleged offence under Sec. 414 of I.P.C. and also under Sec. 30 (ii) of Coal Mines Act and Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on some confidential information, the A.S.I. Prakash Toppo alongwith other police personnel came near Mahto Line Hotel, Jhanjharit and under Gola Police Station and seized the truck and apprehended the driver, who on enquiry disclosed his name as Vikash Kumar and also disclosed that the Khalasi of the truck has fled away with the documents of the coal after seeing the police party. It is also alleged that the driver of the truck and owner after excavating the illegal coal from the forest area had collected 20 tons of steam coal, which was found loaded on the seized truck. It appears from the record that immediately after the seizure of the truck, the Confiscation Case No. 51 of 2013 was initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 2, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh and the same is still pending.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seriously contended that the petitioner had purchased the seized truck after taking loan from the bank and due to seizure of the truck, he has been facing a great financial loss and mental agony though no case under Sec. 414 of I.P.C. or under any provision of Coal Mines Act or Indian Forest Act is made out against this petitioner. It was also submitted that coal in question was loaded on his truck after its release by Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. from Piperwar Colliery of Central Coalfields Limited on 9.2.2013 and that since after its seizure, the truck in question is lying in the campus of the police station in open field and there is every chance that due to weathering effect, the vehicle will be converted into garbage. Hence, his prayer is to release the vehicle.

(3.) Refuting the above submissions, learned Counsel representing the State seriously contended that a petition filed by the petitioner before the Confiscation Authority for release of the vehicle is still pending and the said authority has every jurisdiction to release or not to release the vehicle during pendency of the proceeding. It was also submitted that even if it be considered that Confiscation Authority refused to release the vehicle, there is a provision of filing appeal under Sec. 52 (A) of the Indian Forest Act before the proper authority but without waiting for any order to be passed by respondent No. 2, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is not maintainable in the eye of law.