IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17380 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Sri Binda Prasad, Resident of Mohalla: - Line Par, Mirzapur, P.O. + P.S. - Nawada, District - Nawada, P.I.N. - 805110, State - Bihar, At Present Resides at Mohalla - Mithapur Bas Stand, P.S. - Mithapur, District - Patna. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Environment & Forest Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Conservator of Forest, Environment & Forest Department, Bhagalpur Circle, Bhagalpur, Bihar. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.). 5. The Area Officer of Forest, Environment & Forest Department, Jamui Forest Area, Jamui. 6. Mr.Brahm Deo Das, the Forester, Forest Division, Jamui. 7. The District Magistrate, District – Jamui, Bihar. 8. The Mineral Development Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Jamui. 9. The Mineral Development Officer, Department of Mines and Geology, Sheikhpura. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ray, G. P. 5 with Mr. D.K.Singh, A.C. to G. P. 5. ----------- 05/ 28.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on whose behalf a counter affidavit has also been filed. 2. This writ has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For commanding and directing to the concerned respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner namely AMW HYWA dumper bearing its registration No.BR 01/GB/8366 which has been illegally seized by the forester (i.e. respondent no.6), because the said vehicle was using for supply of metals against the valid - 2 - challans/documents issued by the mining department. (ii) For quashing the seizure list dated 19.05.2011 of vehicle (as contained in Annexure-4), because the same was illegally seized u/s 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar amendment) by the respondent no.6 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to show that the said vehicle was validly using for supply of metals against the valid challans/documents issued by the mining department, for construction of road namely from Jamui to Kawa Coal, allotted in favour of a partnership firm namely M/s Binda Prasad. (iii) For restraining the respondents to take any coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of this instant writ application. (iv) For passing such an order or orders for which the petitioner is entitled under the law in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3 Admittedly, the aforesaid dumper/truck was owned by the petitioner, who was a licensee for carrying stones. Furthermore, the said dumper/truck with stones was seized and a seizure list dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure-4) was prepared under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) as according to the authorities the driver and the khalasi had fled away leaving the truck on road. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that the aforesaid seizure list dated 19.05.2011 was unreliable and illegal as only one witness had signed the said seizure list and he too was a Vanrakshi, i.e. government official. He further stated that only the truck was seized, but it is apparent that the stones were not seized as per the aforesaid seizure list. - 3 - 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the letter of the authorities dated 19.05.2011 (Annexure-5) and 23.05.2011 (Annexure-6) sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not show the nature of the stones, which was laden on the seized truck. Hence, he submits that the seizure of the truck and its articles were absolutely illegal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the matter was investigated by the Forest Officials/ Range Officer and a report dated 30.06.2011 (Annexure-A) was submitted stating therein that the challan issued in favour of the petitioner was for the stones of Sheikhpura area which was pinkish/red colour, but the stones seized from the vehicle was black/white which were found in the protected forest areas and that while the challan was produced for the material/boulder worth 425 cubic ft. the stones present in the vehicle was about 600 cubic ft. and further that the place of issue of challan was 10 K.M. away from the place of seizure of the vehicle which was covered in 30 minutes and the challan was issued at 11 A.M. and the vehicle was intercepted at 3 P.M. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further averred that the confiscation proceeding is pending before the authority concerned and until the said proceeding is continuing, there is no occasion for any interference in the said proceeding which can be expedited on the orders of this Court. He relies upon - 4 - a decision of a Bench of this Court in case of Enamul Haque Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1995(2) PLJR 153 in which it has been held that no writ can be issued to frustrate the object of the Act. 8. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that as per the seizure list only the truck had been seized and there was no mention of stones in the seizure list. In the communications of the authorities to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui also the authorities had not stated the nature of the stones and it was only claimed in the report of the authority that the stones on the truck were found to be pinkish/red colour. In the said circumstances, there being no seizure of the stones, there is no occasion or legality for the authorities to retain the said stones and initiate a proceeding of confiscation. 9. So far the truck is concerned, the seizure list prepared by the authorities is also found to be against the provisions of law which required two independent witnesses for seizure, but in the instant case, there is no independent witness and only one witness had signed the seizure list, who was himself a Government official. In the said circumstances, the seizure cannot be held to be legal and valid, especially when the petitioner had produced documents which showed that he was the owner of the truck and was licensee for carrying such material. 10. So far the aforesaid case law relied upon by - 5 - learned counsel for the respondents, in case of Enamul Haque (supra) is concerned, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of Criminal Court is ousted to pass any order for disposal of the property, which includes forest produce as well as the vehicle etc. used in the commission of the offence, but the provision or amendment in the Act cannot curtail or take away the power of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. However such power has to be exercised on well established principles and not arbitrarily and it is also subject to the certain self imposed restrictions as its object is to see that authorities and tribunals act within the bound of their jurisdiction and no writ can be issued to frustrate the object of the Act nor to make a valid statutory enactment otiose and redundant. 11. In the background of the aforesaid settled principles of law when the materials on record and the pleadings of the parties in this case are considered it appears that the seizure is wholly illegal and unjustified and hence it is the duty of the Court to rescue the aggrieved person, whose articles have been illegally retained by the authorities, who by their acts are trying to frustrate the object of the Act and its provision. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the concerned authorities are directed to forthwith release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing its registration no.BR 01 GB/8366 along with materials kept on the said vehicles. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.