^•.'' IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTA'!j6!LASPl.JR W.P.NO. 1/Lf?. /2003(S.B.) PETITIONERS .^ft^ ^^^y 'v^^' "^ RESPONDENTS 2) Anandram Sahu, -aged about 61 years, son. of Shri Qokulram Saliu, caste-Sahu, resident of Line paara Nagri, Tah. Nagri, Distt. Dhatntari (Chhattisgarh). Rakesh Sahu, aged about 36 years, son of Shri Anandram Sahu, resident of LinepaTa Nagri, Tah. Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.) VERSUS The State of Chliattisgarh, fhrough Secretary, Forest Departnient, D.K.S. Mantralay,Raipur (CG). The AppeUate Aufhority Cum- Cdnservator of Fprest, Raipiu- Girclfi, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest (Geilefal), Authonsed Aiithority, Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari.^CG) AWRD^PETmON UNDER ARI'ICLES 22^7227 OF THE .-s CONSTETUTIO OFIN sx-a KSGH COUR7 OF CHHATTiSGABH ATjBiLASPUR (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P.SHARMA, J.) ^ Wnt Petiiion No.1148 of 2003 Anandram Sahu and another Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON 30/11/20! 1 ^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge '^':Ss^^sntss^s:^'S-^f'^S^^^',.:'^»siS^'-^'sst!SS^^'. ^ UT Petitioners Rssuondents SH COUftT 0s CHHATTZSeARH AT 3ILASPUR Writ Fetjtion No. 1148 of 2003 1. <Anondnim Suhu, aged about 61 years, SOF! of Shri 6oku!r-am Sahu, caste- Scaiu, resident of Llne paara Nagri, Tah. Nagri, bistf.ESSifimtar-i (Chhattisaarh). 2. Rakesh 5<Biu, aged about 36 yeo.rs, sors of Shs'i Aria^dr-am Sahu, resldent of Linepara Ncgri, Tah. Nagri, Disn.Dhsmtari (C.6.) Vsrsus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through : S£cy''€t&ry,Forsst [^p<xrtffis?it. O.K^S. AAcmtraloy, Raipur (C&). 2. The Appeiiste Authorjty Cum- Conseryator of For'est, Raipur C"rc!e, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (C&) 3. Sub-ESivisionai Officer, Forest (Senera!), Authc'rised Aufhority, Nagri, Oistt.Dhamtari (C6) (Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of -Ae Constitution of India) Mr.P.K.C.Tiwari, Senior Advocate with iVir.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the petitioner^>. (Vir.Sushii t>ubey, Sovernment Advocate for the respondents/State. (SB: Hon'bie flAr. T.P. Sharma, J.) irm-iN: (Passed on 30th November, 2011) 1. By this petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have chuilenged 1+ie iegciity ond propriety of 1+ie order dated 22.2.2003 passed by the Forth Additionai Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Crirninai Revision No.136/2002, quashing the order dated 15.3.2002 passed by the Appeilate Authoriiy ond Conservator of Forest, Raipur in Case firll |iil! tW !1) t ' \. -^ No.11/2001, affirming the order dated 14.8.2001 passea by the authorized authoriTy and Sub C)!vi3ional Officer, Nagri (&hanitar0 in Case No.ZKl/Ol/l, whereby •riie au-tnorized authorit/ ond Sub &ivisionai Officer has psssed the oraer of confiscation of Tractor No.M.P.23 S.A.7612 & tro!Sey No.23 6.A.7613. By reversing ths order the mvisionai Court^iiis remanded the case to the auwiorized outhority for decidiny the case orresh after providing opportunjty of hearing to the parties. 2. Z have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the order impugned, orders of the autiiorized cuthority ond appeiiate authority ond copies of other documents fiied on behaif of the petitionerg. . Learned counsei for the petitioners vehementiy orgued l+iat important question of iaw invoive in the present case for consideratlon is whether in case of timber or forest produce not beionging to the ©oyemmentany forest offence is committed then whether without conviction of the offender, vehicie, toois, boats, ropes, chains and o-Hier articles can be confisccited- Learned counsei further argued •riiat in or-der to pcss the order of confiscation reiating to timber and forest produce not beionging to the State Sovernment conviction of the offender is ^/he yua ffon in accordance wit+i Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short the Act, 1927'). Leamed counsei aiso argued that in the present case, the offender has been acquitted. Even otherwise the State has not produced any document to show that offender has bee.fi convicted, therefore, confiscation of such forest produce wos not iegdiy' possibie for authorized authority m accordance Vii'ith Section 55 of the Act, 1927. 4. On -rtie other hand, ieo.rned ©ovemmentAdvocate for the State/respondent opposed the petition and argued •that the present petitioner wcs tnansporting •iiie forest producs by his vehicie without any tronsit pass or vaiid permit, in these circumstances, vehicie was iiabie for confiscation under Section 52 of the Act, 1927 and by confiscating the vehicie and affirming the order of cojifiscation the dppeilate authorcty and r-evisionai ^ -3 iauthority have not cornmitted ony iiiegaiity warranting interference in exercise of supervisor/ jurisdiction under ArYic'ie 227 of the Consiitdtion of India. 5. In 1+ie present case, tfie revisionai Court has remitted the case for providing opportunity of hearing to the pari-ies end passing •ihe order afresh. vVhile remitting ths casetiie r'evisiona! Court has not committ-ed ony iiiegaiity cnd ground is stiii avaiiabie to the petitioners under Section 55 of the Act, 1927. They may redress their grievances before the au'tiiorized authorlt/. 6. VVith the aforesaid observation, the mrit petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. g^/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ S]/- ;;;-wgafnaiwi