High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging an order dated 29.03.2023, whereby the motorcycle of the petitioner was confiscated.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a fact as emerged from the record is that on 23.02.2022, an information was received that some forest produce was being tried to be transported on two motorcycles. One of them being the motorcycle owned by the petitioner bearing vehicle No.UP 40 AJ 2523. It was also stated that on the said motorcycle, the part of the tree was trying to be transported. From the spot in question, the instrument of cutting the tree and three pieces of Sagaun were also recovered. Based upon the said, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the vehicle in terms of the mandate of Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly as per the documents also, the petitioner was not found at the spot along with forest produce and his motorcycle was found there, which has been proceeded to be confiscated. This fact is not denied by learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions, wherein the petitioner was not found at the spot. However, the motorcycle was found at the spot along with the forest produce.

6. In light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of mandate of Section 52-A(5), there is a bar to order of confiscation of any vehicle, subject to the person, who is the owner of the vehicle closed to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the said vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of the servant or agent and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against the use of the said vehicle for the commissioning of the forest offence. It is essential to notice the mandatory provisions contained in Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act as amended in the State of U.P.

7. In the defence taken by the petitioner, it was alleged that the vehicle in question was seized from the residence of the petitioner. To support the said contention, two affidavits were also filed. One being that of Gram Pradhan and other being of Ex-Gram Pradhan, which are on record as Annexure Nos.5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition. The authority concerned, recorded the submission of the petitioner has also the submission of forest authorities, who had stated that at the time of seizure, three people were seen trying to load the forest produce on the vehicle in question. The confiscating authority did not agree with the contention raised by the petitioner on the ground that on his submission dated 05.12.2022, it was not clear that the petitioner was not involved in the forest offence and had not produced any solid evidence in his support to show that he was not involved with the offence in question and as both the vehicles had been recovered on the spot, they were liable for confiscation under Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act and such, an order came to be passed confiscating the said vehicles. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed.

8. In the light of the submissions and statutory provisions reported above, although the power of seizure is conferred upon the forest authorities, an order of confiscation can be passed only when the owner of the vehicle fails to discharge his burden as prescribed under Section 52-A (5) of the Forest Act. Section 52-A(5) is quoted herein-below:- "52-A(5)- No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub- section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use cf the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence."

9. In the present case, the petitioner had pleaded and adduced evidence in support of his contention. Firstly, that the vehicle was seized from his home and thus, it had nothing to do with the offence in question and secondly, that the two persons deposed in favour of the petitioner and verified the contention of the petitioner. While recording the satisfaction, the authorized officer did not deal with any of the two affidavits and relied upon the statement of the forest authorities that the vehicle in question was seized at the place of the alleged offence. Any satisfaction, which is required to be discharged under sub-section 5 of Section 52-A of the Forest Act was pleaded effectively by the petitioner. However, for dismissing the said satisfaction, no reason whatsoever has been recorded.

10. It is well settled that the satisfaction required to be discharged by an authorized officer has to be based upon valid and genuine grounds. Any order which does not take into consideration the materials placed while recording or refusing to record satisfaction, would fall short of test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, holding that reasoning recorded for being dissatisfied by the authorized officer are perverse and without taking into consideration the affidavits, the same cannot be sustained.

11. Two orders are quashed insofar as it relates to confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner. The vehicle shall be released forthwith to the petitioner on his moving documents to demonstrate that he is the owner of the vehicle.

12. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.06.2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging an order dated 29.03.2023, whereby the motorcycle of the petitioner was confiscated.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a fact as emerged from the record is that on 23.02.2022, an information was received that some forest produce was being tried to be transported on two motorcycles. One of them being the motorcycle owned by the petitioner bearing vehicle No.UP 40 AJ 2523. It was also stated that on the said motorcycle, the part of the tree was trying to be transported. From the spot in question, the instrument of cutting the tree and three pieces of Sagaun were also recovered. Based upon the said, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the vehicle in terms of the mandate of Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly as per the documents also, the petitioner was not found at the spot along with forest produce and his motorcycle was found there, which has been proceeded to be confiscated. This fact is not denied by learned Standing Counsel based upon the instructions, wherein the petitioner was not found at the spot. However, the motorcycle was found at the spot along with the forest produce.

6. In light of the said, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of mandate of Section 52-A(5), there is a bar to order of confiscation of any vehicle, subject to the person, who is the owner of the vehicle closed to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the said vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of the servant or agent and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against the use of the said vehicle for the commissioning of the forest offence. It is essential to notice the mandatory provisions contained in Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act as amended in the State of U.P.

7. In the defence taken by the petitioner, it was alleged that the vehicle in question was seized from the residence of the petitioner. To support the said contention, two affidavits were also filed. One being that of Gram Pradhan and other being of Ex-Gram Pradhan, which are on record as Annexure Nos.5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition. The authority concerned, recorded the submission of the petitioner has also the submission of forest authorities, who had stated that at the time of seizure, three people were seen trying to load the forest produce on the vehicle in question. The confiscating authority did not agree with the contention raised by the petitioner on the ground that on his submission dated 05.12.2022, it was not clear that the petitioner was not involved in the forest offence and had not produced any solid evidence in his support to show that he was not involved with the offence in question and as both the vehicles had been recovered on the spot, they were liable for confiscation under Section 52-A(5) of the Forest Act and such, an order came to be passed confiscating the said vehicles. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed.

8. In the light of the submissions and statutory provisions reported above, although the power of seizure is conferred upon the forest authorities, an order of confiscation can be passed only when the owner of the vehicle fails to discharge his burden as prescribed under Section 52-A (5) of the Forest Act. Section 52-A(5) is quoted herein-below:- "52-A(5)- No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub- section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use cf the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence."

9. In the present case, the petitioner had pleaded and adduced evidence in support of his contention. Firstly, that the vehicle was seized from his home and thus, it had nothing to do with the offence in question and secondly, that the two persons deposed in favour of the petitioner and verified the contention of the petitioner. While recording the satisfaction, the authorized officer did not deal with any of the two affidavits and relied upon the statement of the forest authorities that the vehicle in question was seized at the place of the alleged offence. Any satisfaction, which is required to be discharged under sub-section 5 of Section 52-A of the Forest Act was pleaded effectively by the petitioner. However, for dismissing the said satisfaction, no reason whatsoever has been recorded.

10. It is well settled that the satisfaction required to be discharged by an authorized officer has to be based upon valid and genuine grounds. Any order which does not take into consideration the materials placed while recording or refusing to record satisfaction, would fall short of test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, holding that reasoning recorded for being dissatisfied by the authorized officer are perverse and without taking into consideration the affidavits, the same cannot be sustained.

11. Two orders are quashed insofar as it relates to confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner. The vehicle shall be released forthwith to the petitioner on his moving documents to demonstrate that he is the owner of the vehicle.

12. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench