HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shyam Sharma Present: Shri N.K.Chatterjee, counsel for the appellant. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/reSpondents No.1 to 3. Appeal under Section 2(1)_of the Chhattisgarh Hiqh Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26“" August, 201 1) Per Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.: Heard on admission. Writ Appeal No.387 of 2011 Appellant Sanosh Nishad, S/o Late Ramkrishan Nishad, aged about 30 years, Caste Kenwat, R/o Village Sipkona, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG) versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh through : The Secretary, Forest Department Ministry, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) 2. The Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, District Kanker(CG) 3. The Authorized Officer and Sub—Divisional Officer (Forest) BhanupratappUr, District North Bastar Kanker(CG) 4. Presiding Officer, District Court, District North Bastar Kanker 2 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-7-2011 passed in Writ Petition (C.) No.1052/2011 by Iearned Single Judge of this Court. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition flied by the State Authorities and has remanded the matter with certain directions to the competent authority under Forest Act, Kanker, who initially passed the order of contiscation of the vehicle, i.e., Swaraj Mazda bearing registration No.CG 07 ZB 1141. 4. The vehicle was seized in connection with a forest offence and a proceeding for its contiscation was drawn by the competent authority, and ultimately an order of confiscation was passed. An appeal was filed by the appellant herein against the said order before the appellate authority, but it was dismissed. Against the appellate order, the appellant filed a revision before the Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker. The said revision came to be registered as Criminal Revision No.6/2010. The learned Additional Session Judge allowed the revision vide order dated 22-10-2010 and set aside the orders passed by the above two authorities. 5. Against the revisional order, the State Authorities filed the writ petition in which the Iearned Single Judge took a view that proper enquiry was not conducted, therefore, the matter was remanded to the competent authority. $0 Gopal u: 3 6. Since the writ Court entettained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further record of the writ petition does i not show any such reason on which a view may be taken that in fact the writ petition was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further that nothing has been adjudicated on merits and the matter has been simply remanded, we are of the view that this is i not a fit case in which interference in an intra—Court 'appeal is possibie. 7r. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ appeal. The appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. f‘ Sdl— l Kumar Sinha Sdl~ \~ j§unil :l‘ Judge Radhe Shyam Sharma ; l , Judge