The High Court
Case Details
1 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C ) No. 2340 of 2018 Md. Sanowar Hussain, aged about 45 years, son of late Anush, resident of village- Mushlim Mohalla, P.O. + P.S.- .......... Petitioner Balumath, District- Latehar Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Chief Secretary-cum- Revision Authority, Forest Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, P.O. + P.S. & District- Latehar 4. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Latehar, P.O. + P.S. & Dist.- Latehar 5. The Forest Range Officer, Latehar, P.O. + P.S. & District- Latehar 6. The Officer-in-charge, Latehar Police Station, P.O. + P.S. & Dist.- Latehar ........... Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sarvendra Kumar , Adv. : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers : (i) to quash/set aside order the dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure - 5) passed by the Revision Authority-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 74/2017 whereby and where under the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, 2 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 Latehar in confiscation Appeal Case no 14/2016 was affirmed, (ii) for quashing/setting aside the order dated 28.03.2017 (Annexure -4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in confiscation Appeal case no 14/2016 whereby and where under the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Divisional-Forest- Officer, Latehar in confiscation case no 5/2015 Authority- cum- forest Officer, Latehar, in Confiscation Case No. 05/2015 was affirmed; and (iii) to quash / set aside the order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer- cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar in Confiscation Case no.05/2015, (iv) Any other relief or reliefs. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Officer-in-charge of Latehar Police Station , submitted a written report alleging therein that on 03.02.2015, while he along with the police personnel were on patrolling duty, they seized two trucks loaded with coal which were trying to flee away, but the trucks were apprehended on chase by police. The drivers of the trucks could not produce any valid paper and driver of the truck, bearing registration no. CG- 04DL/5181 namely Sanabaz disclosed that 15 tons of coal was loaded in the truck and the same is in fact stolen property and the petitioner and the co-accused persons, were involved in the illegal excavation of coal, from forest land. The papers produced before the police were found to be fake and fabricated. Confiscation Case No. 05 of 2015 relating to the said truck, was instituted before the Forest Officer-cum- Divisional forest Officer, Latehar, as the petitioner did not appear in the said Confiscation Case No. 05 of 2015, in spite of several notices. The Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar proceeded ex-parte in the said confiscation proceeding and vide order dated 01.08.2016, passed confiscation order in respect of the said truck bearing registration no. CG-04DL/5181 the 3 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar being confiscation Forest Appeal Case no. 14 of 2016 under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and same was also dismissed. The petitioner filed revision under Section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the same as already indicated above, was also dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coal loaded on the truck has been legally purchased from M/s Shakti Coal, Ranchi and valid papers in respect of which purchase, were submitted but the learned court below did not consider the fact of the case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, without issuing any notice or show cause, passed a confiscation order in a mechanical manner but in para 25 of the writ petition, it has been categorically, mentioned that the notice issued to the petitioner, was a vague one and does not contain the specific material for an answer, to be given by the petitioner, hence, such notice is not in consonance with law. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
Decision
vehemently opposes the prayer of the writ petitioner. It is further submitted that the Confiscation Proceeding under Section 54 (4) (1) of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 was initiated against the seized truck by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, on the recommendation of the officer-in-charge of Latehar Police Station, and after the information of the initiation of the confiscation proceeding was given to learned CJM, the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar followed the principle of natural justice and notices have been served upon the petitioner to reply within reasonable time, and in this respect, learned counsel for the respondents, draws attention of the court to Annexure E of the 4 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 counter affidavit and submits that Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, even after giving ample opportunity, to the writ petitioner, seeking his reply, as the petitioner did not submit any reply upon repeated notices of show cause, hence, finally the confiscation order was passed by a reasoned order and similarly, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, in Forest Appeal Case no. 14 of 2016, by which, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 01.08.2016. It is then submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar took notice of the fact that during confiscation proceeding, the petitioner, never made any effort for release of the truck in his favour. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, that similarly, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.03.2017, passed in Revision Case no. 74 of 2017 by the Revisional Authority cum Principal Secretary, Forest Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand, by which, the revision, was dismissed. It is next submitted that there is no dispute that the truck bearing registration no. CG-04DL/5181, owned by the petitioner, was engaged in forest related offence, by illegally excavating the coal from Ghutam protected forest area. Learned counsel for the respondents, next submits that the contention of the petitioner, that he has not been served with the notices, by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, is out and out false, as in para 25 of this writ petition, the petitioner, admitted that he has received the notice issued by the Authorized Officer- cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar but ignored it. It is next submitted that the petitioner, has failed to submit any document during the time of the seizure of the truck or before the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, during the confiscation proceeding, regarding ownership of the seized stolen coal. Hence, this writ petition, being without any merit be dismissed. 5 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the only ground taken by the petitioner, in this writ petition, to assail the orders passed by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar in Confiscation Case no. 05 of 2015, dismissal order of the Appeal Case no. 14 of 2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar and the Revision Case no. 74 of 2017 passed by the Revisional Authority cum Principal Secretary, Forest Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand is that no notice was ever issued nor any show-cause was asked for by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar and that the petitioner, has sufficient documents to suggest that the alleged stolen coal is in fact, not stolen coal, but the same has been legally purchased from M/s Shakti Coal, Ranchi. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner, that he was not issued any notice by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar, in Confiscation case no. 05 of 2015 is concerned, the same is falsified by his own admissions made in para 25 of the writ petition, wherein, the petitioner has in categorical terms mentioned that the notice issued to the petitioner, is vague and does not contain specified materials to be answered by the petitioner, so the petitioner, has admitted that he has received notice which is also corroborated by the averments, made in the counter affidavit by the respondents, as well as the Annexure E to the counter affidavit, and the fact that before the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, the petitioner never agitated in Appeal Case no. 14 of 2016, that the notice was never issued by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar. 8. So far as the contention of the petitioner, that the seized coal is in fact, a validly purchased coal, from M/s Shakti Coal, Ranchi is concerned, the facts remains that in spite of service of notice to the show cause, the petitioner, did not make any effort to produce any document, regarding ownership of coal, before the Authorized 6 W.P. (C). No. 2340 of 2018 Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar. The petitioner, has not made any effort for release of the said vehicle during the pendency of the Confiscation Proceeding as well. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that for the first time, it is not open for the petitioner, to agitate a new ground of fact only that the seized coal was in fact not the stolen coal, when such ground was never taken before the original authority, being the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar. Therefore, this Court do not find any merit in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 5th March, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)