[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8317 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT], 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No [ENTITY] Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 1 Respondent(s) Appearance: MR [ENTITY] FOR M/S THAKKAR ASSOC., ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR MR [ENTITY], AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 09/09/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] Thispetition underArticle226ofthe [ACT] beenfiledseekingrelieftoquashandsetasideorderdated562014 [CASE NUMBER] passedbyrespondentNo.1andtoreleasethetruckNo.GJ17X7611in favourofpetitioner.
[2] Factsinshortarethatthepetitioneristheowneroftruckbearing registrationNo.GJ17X7611whichhepurchasedfromShriArvindbhai KeshubhaiPatelon622012.Thepetitionerisengagedinthebusiness oftransportationofdolomitepowerandmiscellaneousproductstoSurat andValsadandalsogiving the truckon rent.On232014, one Shri [ENTITY] took the said truck on rent for transportation of goods. However, as the said truck was found to be carryingNilgiriwoodsfromforestarea,itwasdetainedbyrespondent No.2atBandiVillage.Acomplaintinthisregardwasregisteredagainst the petitioner and said [ENTITY] for the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] andtoreleasethevehicle.However,ashowcausenoticedated342014 wasissuedby [ENTITY] shouldnotbevestedin the Government. Areplywasgivenbythe petitioner on 742014 denying any involvement in the offence and reiteratinghiswillingnesstopaythepenaltyforreleasingthe vehicle andtocompoundtheoffence.Thepetitionermaderepresentationon2 52014. Since there wasnoresponse,the petitioner preferred[CASE NUMBER]. Said petition was disposed of directingtodecidetherepresentationinaccordancewithlawwithin10 days. However, instead of deciding the said representation, the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. Hence, the present petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
[CASE NUMBER] [3] Heard learned advocate, Mr.[ENTITY] for M/s Thakkar
Associatesfor thepetitioner andlearnedAGP,Mr.[ENTITY] respondents.
[4] Learnedadvocate,Mr.NavinPahwaforthepetitioner,submitted thattherespondentNo.1authorityhaspowertoconfiscatethevehicle underSection61AoftheActincertaincaseswheretheForestOfficer believesthattheoffenceiscommittedbytheaccusedi.e.thepetitioner herein. According to him, in the present case, the petitioner has not committedanyoffenceundertheActandtherefore,orderingtovestthe vehicle with the Government is without jurisdiction. He further submittedthatthoughrespondentNo.1authoritywasdirectedtodecide the representation/application of the petitioner and though the petitioner showedwillingnesstopaypenaltytoreleasethevehicleand tocompoundtheoffence,impugnedorderofvestingthevehicleinthe Government is passed which is beyond the jurisdiction. Drawing my attentiontowards[SECTION]oftheAct,hesubmittedthatcaseof the petitioner squarelyfallswithinthepurviewof[SECTION]asnodirect involvement of the petitioner is revealed and the only fault of the petitionerwasthathehadnottakenmuchcarewhilegivingthetruckon rent. He further submitted that in a similarly situated case of [CASE NUMBER], respondent No.1 has released the vehicle vide order dated 25102013. It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order be quashedandsetasideandtruckbereleasedbyimposingsomepenalty. Inthisconnection,[PRECEDENT] Thro. Secretary and Ors reportedin2012(3)G.L.H.837.
[5] LearnedAGP,Mr.[ENTITY],fortherespondentssubmittedthatthe impugnedorderhasbeenpassedbytherespondentNo.1authorityafter takingintothefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandalsoconsidering [CASE NUMBER] that truck bearing registration No. GJ17X7611 belonging to the ownershipofthepetitionerwascarryingNilgiriwoodsfromforestarea and was involved through one Bachubhai Kanjibhai Rathva and therefore,asperprovisionofSection52(1)oftheAct,thesaidvehicle wasseized.ShowcausenoticeunderSection61BoftheActwasissued andafterconsideringthereplygivenagainstthesaidshowcausenotice given by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Conservator of Forestrespondent No.1, in exercise of powers under Section61A(1),(2)oftheActhaspassedthedetailedimpugnedorder after having satisfied that forest offence has been committed by the petitioner and the truck of the petitioner has been vested with the Government and thus, according to him, he has not committed any jurisdictionalerror.
[5.1] He then submitted that on a plain reading of the provision of [SECTION] of the Act, it clearly appears that it isa discretion of the Forest Officer whether to compound or not and as such it is not mandatoryonthepartofsaidofficialalwaystocompoundtheoffence. TheLegislaturehasintroducednewSection61oftheActwithdefinite object behind it to pluck all possible loop holes and to prevent ever increasingmenaceofillegalandruthlessexploitationoftheGovernment forestandtheflimsygroundraisedbythepetitionerwasrequiredtobe rejectedandaccordingly,ithasbeenrejected.
[5.2] ReferringtoSection61DoftheAct,thelearnedAGPsubmitted thatifthepetitionerisaggrievedbytheimpugnedorder,theremedy under [SECTION] is available by way of Appeal before the Hon'ble Sessions Judge and therefore, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article226oftheConstitutionofIndiamaynotinterfereinthepresent petition.
[CASE NUMBER] [6] Consideredthesubmissionsmadebythelearnedadvocatesforthe respective parties and also the order impugned together with the
decision relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Before enteringinto merits or demeritsof the case,the chronologicalevents whichhadtakenplaceareasunder:
Date Events 02/03/2014 [ENTITY] took the truck in question fromthe petitioner on rentfor oneday.Thesaidtruck wasdetainedbyrespondentNo.2atBandivillageonthe groundthattruckwascarryingNilgiriwoodsfromforest area.
02/03/2014 StatementofBachubhaiKaljibhaiRathwawasrecorded. 03/03/2014 Petitioner was called and he remained present before respondentNo.1andhisstatementwasrecorded.
03/03/2014 StatementofBhikhabhaiMohanbhaiRathwadriverofthe truckinquestionwasrecorded.
04/03/2014 Statementsoflabourerswererecorded. 06/03/2014 Statement of [ENTITY] resident of Bandivillageewasrecorded.
03/04/2014 ShowcausenoticewasissuedbyrespondentNo.1 07/04/2014 Petitioner filed reply against showcause notice dated 3.4.2014 02/05/2014 Petitioner once again requested the respondent No.1 to releasethetruckinquestion.
07/05/2014 Beingaggrievedbyinaction onthepartofrespondents, the petitioner was constrained to file [CASE NUMBER].
08/05/2014 ThisCourtdisposedofthepetition directingrespondent No.1 to decide the application of the petitioner dated 7.4.2014 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possibleandpreferablywithinaperiodof10daysfrom thedateofreceiptofthesaidorder.
12/05/2014 Thepetitionerservedtheorderdated8.5.2014passedby thisCourttotherespondentNos.1and2.
05/06/2014 TherespondentNo.1insteadofdecidingtheapplicationof the petitioner dated 7.4.2014 as per direction of this Court,passedthe impugnedorderwithout dealingwith [CASE NUMBER] thecontentionofthepetitionerforcompoundingoffence. 13/06/2014 Filedthispetition.
[6.1] Fromtheaboveevents,itisclearthatafterdetentionofthetruck inquestion,ittookmorethanthreemonthsinpassingthefirstorder dated5.6.2014.Itisthecommonknowledgethatkeepingthevehicle opentoskyforalongperiodoftimewilldefinitelyreducethevehicleto ascrap.Itisnotunderdisputethatafterdetentionofthevehicleinthe caseonhandon2.3.2014,itwasplacedinthecompoundofJetpurPavi Range.Whiledealingwiththeseizedvehiclesfromtimetotimebythe police either Government or any official in commission of various offencesorabandonedvehiclesorvehicleswhicharerecoveredduring investigationofcomplaintoftheft,theHon'bleSupremeCourtandthis HighCourtquiteoftenobservedthat,itisofnousetokeepsuchseized vehicles at the police stations or in any compound of Government buildingforalongerperiod.Suchofficialshouldpassappropriateorders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as securityforreturnofsaidvehicles,ifrequiredatanypointoftimeandit canbedonependinghearingofapplicationsforreturnofsuchvehicles. While deciding [CASE NUMBER] in case of RishikeshR.Shahi(Supra),theDivisionBenchofthisCourtalmoston the similar issue had ordered to handover custody of vehicle to its registeredowner.ItisimportanttonotethattheDivisionBenchhasalso consideredearlierdecisionsrenderedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtincase [PRECEDENT] aswellas Smt.[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY]Supra)readsasunder: "17. If the Rules of 2005 empowers an authorized officer to seize a vehicle on the ground of contravention or breach of other [CASE NUMBER] provisionsoftheRules,thenatthesametime,itisalsoexpectedof theconcernedDepartmenttokeepthevehicleinasafecustodyand inamannertoensurethatthevehicleisnotdamaged,butitisa matterofcommonknowledgethatasandwhenvehiclesareseized andkeptintheopenofficepremisesoftheDepartment,notonly they occupy substantial space of the office premises of the Department,butuponbeingkeptinopen,arealsopronetofast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintainedvehiclelosesitsroadworthinessifitiskeptstationary inthePolicestationorotherplacesformorethanfifteendays. Apartfromtheabove,itisalsoamatterofcommonknowledge thatseveralvaluableandcostlypartsofthesaidvehiclesareeither stolenorarecannibalisedsothatthevehiclesbecomeunworthyof beingdrivenonroad.Ultimately,iftheDepartmentfailstomake outanycaseandtheconfiscationproceedingsaredropped,then under such circumstances, even if the vehicle isreturnedto the owner, it will not serve any good purpose because of extensive damagebeingalreadycausedtosuchvehicles.Toavoidallthis, Rulesprovideforreleaseofthevehicleonexecutionofabond.
[SECTION] of the Rules, 2005, as referred to above, enables the authorisedofficertoprovideforinterimcustodyofsuchproperty, pendingconclusionoftheconfiscationproceedings,oranyother enquiry. It is only a temporary arrangement, and what is contemplatedis,onlyaninterimprovisiontoprovidecustodywith aproperpersonastheauthorisedofficerthinksfit,withliabilityto producethepropertybackasandwhendirectedbytheauthorised officer. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusionoftheconfiscationproceedings,oranyotherenquiry.It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protect or preserve the property, pending the confiscation proceedings. Even if the person entrusted with the interimcustodyistheowner,hispossessionorcustodyduringthe periodofentrustmentisonlyasrepresentativeoftheauthorised officer,andnotinhisindependentright.Heisboundbytheterms of entrustment and the bond executed by him in favour of the authorisedofficer.Hisownershiporrighttopossessionmaynot operateagainsthisobligationtotheDepartment.Theentrustment or custody will not invest him with any preferential right to ownershiporevenpossession.Intheeyeoflaw,hispossessionor custodyisonlythatoftheauthorisedofficeroftheDepartment. What is stated above does not mean that the power of the authorised officer is arbitrary. Even though the power is [CASE NUMBER] discretionary, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner. Whenever such application for interim custody of the vehicle is preferred, the authorized officer is obliged to take into consideration many other factors, over and above the contraventionwhichisalleged.Whiledecidingsuchanapplication, the authorised officer's main concern should be to protect or preservetheproperty,pendingtheconfiscationproceedingsorany otherenquiry.AnapplicationunderRule18oftheRules,2005 couldnotberejectedonlyonthegroundthattheownerofthe vehicleisallegedtohavecommittedbreachoftheRules.Ifthatbe theonlyconsideration,thentheobjectwithwhichRule18ofthe Rules,2005hasbeenenacted,wouldgetfrustrated.Theauthorised officerisobligedtokeeptheobjectofRule18ofRules,2005in mindwhiledecidingtheapplication.Inthepresentcase,wehave noticedthattheCollector,Surat,beingtheauthorisedofficerunder theRulesof2005,tookintoconsiderationonlythefactthatthe petitionerbeingtheownerofthevehicle,wastryingtotransport thesandoutsidetheStateofGujaratandhaspastantecedence. TheCollector,Suratfailedtoconsidertheconsequencesofkeeping thevehicleidleatanopenplaceformonthstogetherpendingthe confiscation proceedings, and also failed to consider that the vehicle is prone to fast natural decay on account of weather condition.Suchbeingtheposition,weareoftheopinionthatthe authorised officer failedto exercise his discretion in a judicious manner.Thediscretionhastobeexercisedjudiciouslyandnotas perthewhimsandcapriceoftheauthorisedofficer."
[6.2] Itistobenotedthatinthecaseonhand,therespondentNo.1 failed to consider the consequences of keeping the vehicle idle at an openspaceandasheallowedtoremainthetruckinquestionunused, definitelyitwillbecomejunk.Asreferredabove,thepresentpetitioner [CASE NUMBER] which he was constrained to file because of inaction on the part of respondentNo.1totakedecisionrelatedtotruckinquestion.Theorder passedbythisCourton08.05.2014inthesaidSpecialCivilApplication No.7142of2014readsasunder: "1. By filing the present petitioner under [SECTION] of the Constitution,thepetitionerhasprayedthefollowingprayers.
[CASE NUMBER] "8(A)YourLordshipsbepleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,order ordirectiondirectingtherespondentauthoritiestoforthwith release the truck bearing Registration No.GJ17X7611 in favourofthepetitioneronsuchtermsandconditionsasmaybe deemedfitandproperbythisHon'bleCourt,intheinterestof justice.
(B) YourLordshipsbepleasedtodirecttherespondentauthorities toforthwithreleasethetruckbearingRegistrationNo.GJ17 X7611 in favour of the petitioner on such terms and conditionsasmaybedeemedfitandproperbythisHon'ble Court,pendingtheadmission,hearingandfinaldisposalof thispetition;
(C) Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the interestofjustice."
2. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,ifthefollowing orderispassed,theendsofjusticewouldbemet.
"The respondent No.1-[ENTITY], is hereby directed to decide the application dated 7.4.2014 of the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiouslyaspossiblepreferablywithinaperiodof10days fromthedateofreceiptofthisOrder.ThisCourthasnotgone intothemeritsofthecase."
3Inviewoftheaboveobservations,[ENTITY],learnedAdvocate, appearing for the petitioner, does not press this petition. Petition standsdisposedofaccordingly.DSispermitted."
[6.3] Referring to the above order, it is clear that while passing the aboveorderdated8.5.2014,thisCourthasdirectedtodecidetheissue inquestionasexpeditiouslyaspossibleandpreferablywithinaperiodof 10daysfromthedateofreceiptofthesaidorder.Itisnotunderdispute thatrespondentshavereceivedthesaidorderdated8.5.2014aswellas 1to[SECTION]pagesmentionedthereinon12.5.2014.Asthesaidorderwasnot compliedwith,ContemptPetitionbeingMisc[CASE NUMBER] of2014wasfiledbythepetitioner.However,theimpugnedorderwas passed after 24 days i.e. on 5.6.2014 and hence, the said Contempt Petitionwaswithdrawnon9.7.2014withalibertytochallengetheorder beforeappropriateforum.Nosatisfactoryandconvincingexplanationfor delayhasbeenforthcomingonrecord.Evenwhilepassingtheimpugned order, the respondent No.1 has not thought it fit to write one line regardingtheabovereferredorderdated8.5.2014andtakecognizance ofthesame.Inthepreviouspetitionaswellinthispetition,itisaverred bythepetitionerthattheveryrespondentNo.1i.e.Mr.[ENTITY],has, in similar set of facts directed to release the truck in favour of the originalownerandalsofurnishedcopiesofsuchorders.Neitherinthe impugnedordernorintheaffidavitinreply,thesaidrespondentNo.1 has denied said facts and also not dealt with the said issue and it appearsthattherespondentNo.1isdeliberatelyignoringtotouchthe saidissue,presumablybecausehehasnoanswerforthesame. This Courtisquiteawareofthecontentionraisedbytherespondentsofa remedyunderSection61DoftheActtoapproachtheHon'bleSessions Courtandtherefore,thisCourtshouldnotexerciseitsjurisdictionunder Article226ofthe[ACT]However,theaboveconductof the respondents has prompted this Court to decide the issue in this petitionwiththesoleintentiontodecidetheissuerelatedtotruckin questionasearlyaspossibleratherthangivinglibertytothepetitioner to approach Sessions Court under [SECTION] of the Act, as it may furtherdelaytheissuerelatedtohandingoverthetruck.
[7] Iamquiteconsciousofthefactthatthepurposeofinsertionof Section52aswellasotherSectionsi.e.52A,52B,52C,and52Dbythe saidamendmentistohaveacheckonthemeansofdestructionofforest andforestproduceandtodeterthelawbreakersincludingtheownerof thevehiclefromrepeatingthesaidcrimeagain.Iamalsoawareofthe [CASE NUMBER] settledlegalpositionthatownerofthevehiclecarryingforbiddengoods cannotabsorballtheliabilitiesevenifhemaynothavebeenpresentat thespot.
[8] ItissubmittedbythelearnedAGPfortherespondentsthatinan appropriate case where no offence is made out, the High Court in exerciseofitspowersunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiamay releasethevehicle,butwhenprimafaciecaseismadeoutagainstthe person, no vehicle shall be released by the Court exercising its discretionarypowerstoseethattheprovisionsoftheIndianForestAct arenotfrustrated.Hethensubmittedthatinthecaseonhand,whenthe primafaciecaseismadeoutagainsttheperson,thisisnotafitcasefor release of the vehicle by the Court. Before dealing with the said submissionmadebythelearnedAGPfortherespondents,itisdesirable to consider certain orders passed by the respondent No.1Shri [ENTITY],DeputyForestConservatorinsimilarsetoffacts.Inanother case,hehasdirectedtoreleasethetruckorthevehicleinfavourofthe concernedoriginalowner.IfAnnexureHisseen,itappearstobethe copy of the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by respondentNo.1Shri [ENTITY], Deputy Forest Conservator in [CASE NUMBER]. Likewise,thesaidofficerhasalsopassedanotherorderinsimilarsetof facts,copyofwhichisatAnnexureIrelatedtoCaseNo.14of201314 on19.09.2013,afterconsideringandexercisingthediscretionarypowers vestedinhimtocompoundtheoffenceunder[SECTION]oftheAct.Ona plainreadingoftheprovisionof[SECTION]oftheAct,itclearlyappears that it isdiscretion of the concerned authority whether to compound offence under [SECTION] of the Act or not. I also find myself in agreementwiththesubmissionmadebyMr.[ENTITY],learnedAGPthatit isnotmandatoryonthepartofconcernedofficial,alwaystocompound theoffenceunder[SECTION]oftheAct.Inthecaseonhand,respondent [CASE NUMBER] No.1hasnotthoughtitfittoexercisethediscretionarypowerswithin thepurviewof[SECTION]oftheActbecausethepetitionerownerofthe truckinquestionhasnottakenduecarebeforegivingthetruckonrent. Intheearlierreferredcasesalso,therespondentNo.1hascometothe conclusionthattheownersofthosevehicleshavenottakenduecareat the relevant point of time and inspite of that he has exercised his discretionary powerunder[SECTION]oftheActandtherefore,inmy view, when the facts of present case are identical and similar to the abovereferredcases,therespondentNo.1oughttohavegivensimilar treatment and ought to have released the truck in favour of the petitionerowneronpaymentofpenaltymoreparticularlywhenitisnot underdisputethatsofarasthetruckinquestionandownerofthesaid truckareconcerned,thisisthefirstoffenceregisteredagainsthim.As observed by the Division Bench in [ENTITY]), even thoughthepowerisdiscretionary,ithastobeexercisedinajudicious manner. Under the above discussed circumstances, it is clear that in similar set of facts in which the petitioner is falling as discussed hereinabove,similartreatmentappearsnottohavebeengivenbythe respondent No.1Shri [ENTITY], Deputy Forest Conservator, and no satisfactoryexplanationforthesamehasbeenforthcomingontherecord andthus,itcanbesaidthattheactiontakenbytherespondentNo.1is somewhat,arbitrary.
[9] Itisnotunderdisputethattheshowcausenoticedated3.4.2014 atAnnexureDwasissuedandtheimpugnedorderdated5.6.2014at AnnexureAwaspassedagainstSahilHusenbhaiAlam.Inthereplyto theshowcausenoticedated7.4.2014andintherequestmadebythe petitioner dated 2.5.2014, the same were replied/written by [ENTITY] factthattheremaybetypographicalerror,butitappearsthatwithout [CASE NUMBER] application of mind, the facts have been narrated by the respondent No.1 because in the earlier petition being [CASE NUMBER] and letter dated 12.05.2014, copies of which were servedontherespondents,nameofthepetitionerisshownasShakil HusenbhaiAlam.IntheR.C.Bookalso,thevehicleappearstohavebeen registeredinthenameofShakilHusenbhaiAlam.Itappearsfromparas 5 and 7 of impugned order itself that the statements of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were recorded on 2.3.2014 and 3.3.2014 respectively, in which name of ShakilHusenbhaiAlamhasbeenmentionedastheownerofthevehicle inquestion.Nosatisfactoryexplanationregardingtheimpugnedorder passedagainstSahilHusenbhaiAlamisforthcomingontherecord.From theabove,itcanbesaidthatnocareappearstohavebeentakenbythe respondents,however,Iamnotgivinganyweightageontheaboveissue sofarasmeritsofthecaseisconcerned.
[10] ReferringtotwoordersatAnnexureHandAnnexureIpassedby [ENTITY],DeputyForestConservatorrespondentNo.1herein,it appears that while passing the said order, the circumstances as to whethervehicleinquestionwasinvolvedforthefirsttimeorformore than one occasion was taken into consideration. Moreover, while consideringtheaspectofreleasingthevehicleinquestionseizedbythe respondentstheissueastowhethertheaccusedorownerofthesaid vehicleisahabitualoffenderornotwillbeanimportantaspect.The petitionerisclammingthattheoffenceunderconsiderationisthefirst oneandtherefore,sympatheticviewshouldbetakenbyallconcerned.It isnotthecaseoftherespondentsthatthesaidfactrelatingtooffence beingcommittedforthefirsttimeisnotcorrect.
[11] Under the above discussed circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. As discussed hereinabove, since last [CASE NUMBER] approximatelysixmonths,thevehicleinquestionhasremainedinthe custodyoftherespondentsandafterdetentionofthesaidvehicle,itwas keptidleinthecompoundofJetpurPaviRangeandthattoonaturallyin anopentoskycondition.Thenaturalwearandtearofthevehicleis boundtobetheresofarasthevehicleinquestionisconcerned.After releasing the vehicle in question also to make the said vehicle road worthy,substantialamountwillhavetobeexpendedbythepetitioner. Consideringalltheaboveaspects,Iamoftheviewthatendsofjustice wouldbemetiftheorderofminimumamountofpenalty/compensation ispassedagainstthepetitioner. Hence,thispetitionispartlyallowed andtheimpugnedorderdated05.06.2014passedbyrespondentNo.1is herebysetaside.Onconditionofthepetitionerdepositinganamountof Rs.5,000/(RupeesFiveThousandOnly)withtherespondentNo.1,the vehicle in question bearing registration No.GJ17X7611 is hereby directedtobereleasedforthwith.Thepetitionerisalsodirectedtogive anundertakinginformofanaffidavittotheeffectthatthevehiclein question would not be involved in such offence in future. Necessary entries related to the offence in question shall be reflected in the R.C.Bookofthevehicleinquestioni.e.bearingregistrationNo.GJ17X 7611 of the petitioner by the concerned official of the Regional TransportOffice.Ruleismadeabsolutetotheaforesaidextent.
[11.1] Itisclarifiedthatsofarasmuddamalrelatedto48woods which were allegedly found in the truck in question when it was detainedisconcerned,therespondentsareatlibertytodisposeofthe samethroughauctionafterfollowingthedueprocedureforthesame.
([ENTITY], J.) siddharth