131^- ^ -^ c S, \^vv IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT: BILASPUR 'W.P.No.^^0 OF 2005 PETITIONER: < Chander Nath Bhogami, aged 20 years,son of Shri Thunu Ram, caste Muriya, t, ^^^..;<^o^.1." agriculturist, resident of village Chhote ^\&y''"'.^'^' Tumnar» tehsil Dantewada, district South lsl??"" °"'!"? \^J.^' . Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ^ o^ RESPONDENTS: .^-^ •^^^ ^^ \°. ^,^' ^^•~ VERSUS ' 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department ofForest, Raipur 2. The Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada, Office of the S.D.O. (Forest) Anwrabhata Forest Depot, Dantewada, district South Bastar (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATXJRE OF M&NDAMUS, QUO TgARRANTO AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTIONS. ^ ^^ws^- g^—-^-^'^ Amit HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5180 of 2005 PETITIONER : ChanderNath Bhogami. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Pres^nt: Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passedon 03rd day of August, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 21.7.2005 (AnnexureP/4) whereby the application of the petitioner for release of his Tractor and Trolly bearing registration No. CG-05/2778 and CG-05/2779 respectively, on Supurdnama, was rejected by the competent officer/Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Dantewada. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings has been pending since July, 2005 before the competent authority, but no final order has been passed, and for want of final order, the petitioner cannot approach the Conservator of Forest under the provisions of section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as the final order of confiscation has not yet been passed. 3. Shri Verma also submits that for the last five years, the aforesaid Tractor and Trolly are lying unused without maintenance. The petitioner has fair chance of success in the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that if the proceeding is still pending consideration, the same may be directed to be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible. 5. In view of the above, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the competent officer/Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Dantewada to consider the case expeditiously and pass final order, in accordance with law and on its own merit and perspective, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge