Sri Santosh Kumar aged about 29 years, S/o Late Chandulal R/o Gariaband, Di5tt. RAIPUR VERSUS v- ' RESIfdNDE‘NTs f (y 1. State of Chhattisgar‘n, Thmugh: Eorest Departmen RAIFUR- CHHATTISGARH. Conservator of Forest Raipur circlé RAIPUR station Road, Ra'ipur 3. Range Officer, Gariaband, , Distt. Raipur. 4. Hemial Dhruve, Eorest Guard' ‘ C11hura.D£stt. Raipur \/ PEHTION UNDER ARTICLE 22ggg1 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA ‘ t , PETITIONER f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.759 OF 2001 Sri Santosh Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri N.N. Roy, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. RESPONDENTS qr (Passed on this 1“ day of December, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. ORDER (ORAL) 2. By this petition, the petitioner claims recovery of wooden logs, which were seized by the respondent authorities. Earlier the petitioner has preferred the writ petition to the same effect before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P.No.1379 of 1999 (Santosh Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh disposed of the said writ petition on 3-12-1999 (Annexure — P/9) with the following observions : at “(a) (b) (C) (d) whether the goods seized from the custody of the father of the petitioner was kept on ‘supradnama’ and if the same has been taken by the Deptt. from the custody of the ‘Supradar’; if the seized timber was taken from the custody of the ‘Supradar’ whether any communication was made to the petitioner to take back the seized good; what quantity of seized goods has been taken by the petitioner and what has not beentaken and the reasons therefor; if the timber in question is in proper condition and, if not, who is responsible for the same; and (e) what was the value of the timber at the time of seizure.” The Chief Conservator of Forest shall decide in respect of the aforesaid issues and communicate to the petitioner ..... " On the basis of observations made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest issued the letter dated 3-3-2000 (Annexure — P410) to the petitioner. Earlier. the petitioner was informed on 10-12-1990, 16-4-1 991 & 29-4-1 991 to take away the seized woods pursuant to the order dated 5-7—1990 (Annexure 4 P/4) passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge. Raipur, in criminal revision No.128/87. The petitioner was failed to lift the said wooden logs and, as such, with the passage of time the wooden logs have been destroyed in the'natural habitat. Though the petitioner has impugned the legality and validity of the letter dated 3-3—2000, but has not questioned non-receipt of the letters. At this stage, the petitioner raised a plea that the notices dated 10-12—1990, 16-4-1991 & 29-4-1991 were not received by him, which cannot be permitted for want of pleadings and material. Thus, there is no reason not to believe the communication wherein it is clearly stated that despite several noticesas aforestated, the petitioner has failed to take away the wooden logs/goods in question for a peT'iod of two decades. Thus, it cannot be held that the woods would remain ' as it is, even today. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to any other proper forum, which may be available for recovery of money, if proved andtif so advised. No order asto costs. i Sdl- Satish K, Agnihotri i Judge