HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. WritADpealNo.496/2011 Appellant (Petitioner) Respondents Vs. 1. Kishore Jaiswani S/o. Shri Goptehand Jaiswanj, aged about 44 years, R/o. Risipara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Mantriaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur(CG) 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Forrest Division Dhamtari. District Dhamtari (CG) Present: Smt. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the appellant. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondents, on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (02.11.2011.) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/petitioner has ffled this appeal against order dated 23rd August, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4814/2011 by the writ Court. 3. By the impugned order, the writ Court has dismissed the writ petition fited by the appellant/petitioner keeping liberty with the appellant to approach competent Court of civll jurisdiction for payment of compensation etc. ^ ^ W.A. No.496/2011 4. Smt. Ahuja submits that the seizure of wood belonging to the appeltant was illegal. Even the registration of offence under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act was also illegal. She submfts that subsequent to the registration of the above offence, the appellant/petitioner approached the authorities for release of wood on fumishing bank guarantee, but the authorities denied to release the wood. The wood was kept at an open place and it was badly damaged. Her submission is that when the wood was released on 17.12.2008, it was so badly damaged that its original value was reduced to 95-98%. The writ Court held that the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided on the basis of the statement made by the parties. This requires proper enquiry in the matter, examination of evidence and witnesses. The writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition and above liberty was reserved to the appellant/petjtioner to approach competentjurisdictjonal civM Court, if so advised. 5. Smt. Ahuja submtts that there is no order pertaining to the prayer relating to punishment to the wrong doers and Initiation of departmental enquiry against them. We gather from record that after seizure of wood on 01 .5.2007, a forest case bearing registration No.1413/21 dated 01.5.2007 was registered under Section 41 ofthe Indian Forest Act, 1927 and report was submitted to the competent authority in the prescribed format. In the said report, it has been mentioned that the appellant had committed offences of simitar nature eariier also. It was also mentioned in column 12 of the report that the appellant/petitioner wanted to compound the offence. We .,-/-^^<.\ ^.^•<^^..-?., ^s^- ^ 'v^^. W.A. No.496/2011 K^ further gather from the record that the above offence was compounded on payment of Rs.500/- by the appellant/petftioner and communication to this effect was issued to him. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any good ground to issue any direction relating to the above relief claimed by the appellanVpetitioner in the writpetition. 6. We are of the view that the writ Court was fully jusUfied in holding that in such matter, where disputed questions of facts are to be decided, the appellant/petitioner should approach competent civil Court instead of filing the writ petition. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find auiy substance in the writ appeal, which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Bini r