The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 371 of 2024 Kavita Singh, aged about 51 years, w/o late Ajay Kumar Singh, R/o Hawai Nagar, Birsa Chowk, Road No.07, PO+PS-Hatiya, Dist-Ranchi Versus ... … Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Divisional Forest Officer cum Authorized Officer, Ramagarh Forest … ... Respondents Division, PO +PS+District-Ramgarh
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG-IA -------- Order No. 09 /Dated: 7th December 2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1.For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing/setting aside the proceedings of Confiscation Case No. 104/2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration no. JH 01 CJ 9958 (Haiwa); AND The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble Court directing the concerned respondents to forthwith release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the petitioner And/or Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued, order/orders be passed, direction/directions be made as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 3. Vide order dated 18.04.2024 this Court had asked the respondent-State as to whether the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 552 of 2021 and analogous cases has been assailed by the State Government or not. For brevity order dated 18.04.2024 is extracted hereinbelow: “State will file an affidavit stating as to whether any Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.P.(C) No.552 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.553 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.572 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.578 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No.726 of 2021 or whether the said order has been accepted by the State. If the said order has been accepted by the State and the vehicles have been released without filing the Letters Patent Appeal, why not the 1 same order will be passed in respect of this writ petition within a period of two weeks. List this case after two weeks.” 4. Today, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned AAG-IA, though opposed the prayer made in the instant writ application but submits that the order passed in similar/same matters as referred in the order dated 18.04.2024 has not been assailed by the State and the vehicle has already been released to the respective petitioner. However, the only difference between the writ application(s) referred in the order dated 18.04.2024 and the instant case is that those vehicles were empty and this vehicle was loaded with sand. He further submits that now the law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that whenever there is a case of release of vehicle related with forest produce then the vehicle shall be released subject to the bank guarantee and/or any other condition. Learned AAG-IA referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “State of Karnataka vs K. Krishnan” (2000)7 SCC 80. 5. In reply to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards paragraph no.16 of order dated 27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 552 of 2021 with analogous cases and submits that the same has also been considered by the writ Court in its earlier order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in W.P.(C) No. 552 of 2021 with analogous cases, this Court in paragraph nos. 16 to 18 have held as under: “16. In the case in hand, the allegation against the petitioners is that their vehicles have been used for transportation of sand mined from “Deogarh Ghat” of Damodar river. The vehicles of the petitioners have also not been seized from the forest land. It is not the claim of the respondents that the sand was mined from the forest area. Moreover, nothing has been recovered from the vehicles of the petitioners. Even if the claim of the respondents to the extent that the petitioners’ vehicles were being used for illegal transportation of sand, is accepted then also, the same does not constitute forest offence as the respondents have failed to prove that the sand was mined and removed from the forest land. In the supervision report, as has been annexed in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2, three places of occurrence have been described and none of those is forest area. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 2 had any reason to believe that forest offence was committed by the respective vehicles of the petitioners so as to initiate proceedings for confiscation of 2 the same. 17. That apart, it is evident that the F.I.R. being Patratu P.S Case No. 104 of 2020 was lodged under rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 and Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 alleging illegal transportation of sand by the vehicles in question, however no forest offence was alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the said F.I.R. 18. Under the facts and circumstance, I am of the view that confiscation proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Section 52 of the Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment) are not maintainable and are liable to be set aside.” 7. This Court vide order dated 18.04.2024 clearly indicated that if the order passed in the above referred cases has been accepted by the State and the vehicles have been released without filing Letters Patent Appeal; why not the same order will be passed in respect of this writ petitioner. This particular sentence indicates that the case of this petitioner is fully covered with the above referred cases. Even otherwise, in paragraph no. 16 also it has been observed by the learned writ Court that even if the claim of the respondents to the extent that petitioner’s vehicles were being used for illegal transportation of sand is accepted; then also the same does not constitute forest offence as the respondents have failed to prove that the sand was mined and removed from the forest land. 8. The position remains the same in this instant writ application also. As such, the instant writ application is allowed and the confiscation proceeding initiated for confiscation of vehicle of the petitioner is set aside. The respondent no.2 is directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner forthwith but not beyond a period of two weeks keeping in mind the observation given by the Hon’ble Apex Cout in “K. Krishnan” (supra). 9.
Decision
Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Amit (Deepak Roshan, J.) 3