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 W.P.C. No. 1206 of 2002. W.P.C. 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, Govt. 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 v. G. V. Sudhakar Rao, AIR 1986 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.) The owner of the vehicle filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Revisional authority. He reiterated his contention that there was no finding that he was responsible for the illicit transport of timber. He also submitted that in a criminal prosecution launched, he had been acquitted. On these grounds, he sought interference by this Court with the order of the Revisional authority. The learned single Judge, without considering the effect of Section 52(5) of the Act, as amended in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand, proceeded to hold that the confiscating authority had not established the connivance of the owner of the vehicle. In fact, it is not very clear as to what exactly is the finding of the learned single Judge. Where it be, the Revisional order was interfered with and the order of the appellate authority dropping the proceedings was restored and the vehicle was directed to be released to the writ petitioner after verifying his ownership.