M u! THE ‘ HlsH WRIT COURT PETITION OF CHHATTISQARI-I No 210 i I zoo AT BLASPUR / 1 f‘ slikh Cham Smgh S/o Karnall Slrlgh Aged about years ReSIéent of CCMTP Nagar ‘ Bhllal Durg a“ Dist IDurg (C G ) . : __.——-— PETITIONER I I \Igrsus ’1. State of Chhattlsgrh ‘0 $xlI§ ¥ Through the Secretary Department of Forest 6&4 D K S Bhawan Q. Qieb‘ié R? zipur-(C.G.) wag a é 2. T e$ouector Through the Mining Department I Kanker vc a? I, I he DIVISIonal Forest Offcer x “‘st Bhanupratapur Forest I ‘I s rlct North Bastar Kanker(C.G.) I ' g G’ Th Deputy Ranger i from v I: nupratapur a st Kanker TITIQN utrtDER ARTICLE 2 é & 27.TQF THE CQNSTITUTIQN QF INDLA VI $3 4 % s“ l 1 5”“ PARTICULARS QF THE P‘ETlTlQNER As per cause title. t 2: f RTlQLlLARS OF THE RESPQNDENE I t r i ‘ . @ gamma—wing W m m mmwpmmmm m m §% Mmmw ‘ mgqamgjagm 30.07.2004 Shri RS. Jaiswal, cou use} for the petitionas. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, D€puty Gov3mm€nt Advocate far &'§’ ths Stam/ respondents. SD‘O. (Forest) is presant in Court. This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition Nos.1945/QOO4, 1946/20C 4, 1947/2004, 2104/2C‘04 8s '2 105/ 2004, as The question involved in these petitions is aksc. similar. l The peritioners have preferred these petitions under of the Constitution of India being aggrieved 1 l Article 226/227 by the order—dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure 13—11) passed by respondent NOB—Divisional Forest Officer rejecting ihe: applications of the petitioners for release of vehicles on \p Suprudnama. ‘wa’ l I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. w 1‘ V Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 22.04.2004 the petitioners’ trucks bearing registration Nos. ‘CG—O7—ZC—‘2056, CG-ll—ZB-O 141, 'CGO7—C—2070, CGO7—C- 2069, CGO7—ZC—‘2050 & CGO7-ZC—4335 carrying iron ore mineral extracted from the valid mining lease of one Anil _ Lunia granted by the State Goveninient in the year 2002, were seized illegally by respondent Nos. 2 8a 3 on a false ground of illegal mining. He further submitted that the XI—HC-22 WW E€IW ‘Qrwwm trucks in question were seized on the route falling under the forest area, but the petitioners have already paid the road tax for the said route. On the other hand Advocate argued that the question were can'ying, was from the valid mining lease of Anil Lunia. As far as the payment of road tax is concerned, same was paid by the petitioner in collusion with some officials of the forest department and on coming ‘ department had received tt petitioner, departmental ac them and road tax paid by refunded. He further subm trucks in question were se particularly for trucks in q by the petitioner. Therefore pertains to forest produce a strict View must be submitted that confiscation another three months time ugned order dated 2 1.05.2004‘ y the Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure P—ll) it. has b en mentioned that as per the ! learned Deputy Government iron ore, which the trucks in ‘extracted from the forest area not azr :0 lmow that some officials of the .e road tax in collusion With the ‘tion has been initiated against the petitioner was ordered to be Ltted that the route on which the ized is not a notified route and tion no road tax have been paid he submitted that since offence as per the Hon'ble Apex Court n in this regard. He further proceeding is in progress and in t will be completed. r - I have perused the im In the order passed O ,/ u s d e a XI—HC—22 mm WW WW #3 *' ihe comisc‘ation pro‘ceedin provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and guidelines issued by the Government, there is no provision for releasing the vehicle and property on Supurdginama, therefore, the application filed by :he petihioner is dismissed. Section 53 of the Act, which deals with the release of property seized under Section 52 of the Act envisages that “any forest officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Ranger who, ,or Whose subordinate, has seized any tools, boats, vehicle or cattle under Section 52, may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released: if and when so required, before the Magistrate having j diction to try“ the offence on account of which the seizur has been made”. Learned counsel for he petitioners submits that in place of the word-‘carts’ th word ‘vehicle’ has been inserted by the Act No.9 of 65,‘ there ore, the order of forest officer on the face of it appears to be gal and the petitioner is entitled for release of the vehicles o the conditions mentioned in the above clause. As learned Deputy Go rnment Advocate submitted that is likely to take three months time, therefore for such long period if the vehicles in question are allowed to re ain in open area, it will cause damages to the vehicles a s it mar become junk. In such a n, ,. ’s u ‘ e XI»HC-22 Rashan situation, I am of the opinioxwi that it will be just and proper to release the vehicles in question on furnishing Suprudnama for each vehicle on fo110wing a The petitioner sh Lac before the Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhamupratapur Forest, District North LG) Within a period of two weeks all furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of R32 terms and conditions:— Bastar, Kanker K from todav o The petitioner wil vehicles to the th the pendency of t o The petitioner . not transfer or aiienate the said ird party in any manner during he confiscation proceedings will produce the vehicles in question before the Divisional Forest. Officer as and when require With the aforesaid o' petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per Ri iles. d. i y ‘ aservation and directions, the