ALOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND : REVISIONAL AUTHORITY -CUM- COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT : DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER : RANGE OFFICER, RAJGANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Court I.A. No. 2083 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner, praying for allowing him to carry out certain amendments in the original writ application in order to incorporate certain developments which had transpired during the pendency of this writ application and also the corresponding prayers thereto.

(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure -5) passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner's Revision Application filed against the order dated 22.06.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure -4), was rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order of confiscation dated 13.12.2003 (Annexure -3) passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2003 whereby the petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under the provisions of Indian Forest Act and also to quash the order dated 22.06.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 5) in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 1/2004.

(3.) SRI Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders would submit that the order of confiscation is totally against the provision and spirit of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel explains that according to the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, no order of confiscation of any vehicle could be made when it is proved by the concerned owner of the vehicle that the use of such vehicle was without his knowledge or connivance and all reasonable and necessary precaution has been taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence. Learned counsel explains that the prosecution report which was submitted before the Confiscating Authority, had categorically indicated that after investigation it was established that the petitioner, though being the owner of the vehicle, was not involved either in loading of the forest produce or in the transportation thereof on the vehicle and such loading on the vehicle was done by the passengers without the knowledge of the petitioner. The report also had confirmed that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle and was entrusted to the driver and it was in his exclusive use and occupation.