IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15537 of 2008 BINOD MISTRY, SON OF LATE RAMPAD MISTRY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MUBARAKPUR, P.S. – KURTHA, DISTRICT - ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, AURANGABAD FOREST DIVISION, AURANGABAD. 3. THE FORESTER, KINJER FOREST RANGE, KINGER, DISTRICT – ARWAL. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mrigank Mauli, Adv. Vinay Mistry, Adv. For the State :- 4 18.04.2009 The petitioner challenges the seizure as made by Forest Officer of Kinger, District – Arwal. It appears that on 3.06.2008, an inspection was made by the Forest Officer in petitioner’s premises at Kurtha within the village of Mubarakpur in the District of Arwal. It is alleged that one saw blade and a wheel and two frames of bed were recovered. It was alleged that the petitioner was operating a saw mill without valid license. What is curious to note is that what were the dimensions of the blade or the wheel are not stated at all. Admittedly not a single piece of wood except frame of bed was found. Petitioner states that he is a small time carpenter. For ulterior motive, this false accusation has been made and in fact the articles were seized were only carpentry implements and that is why no details were given. He submits that the case was then instituted one month after the seizure with absolutely no explanation for the delay on part of the informant. Now in the counter affidavit what is stated is that the blade found was 6.20 meters and the wheel had a diameter of 2.9 meters which is indicative that a saw-mill was being unauthorizedly run. All this court - 2 - would say at this stage is that for running a sawmill, as is now sought to be projected in the counter affidavit, it is not merely the blade or the wheel that is required. They are both useless unless there is a motor attached with engine or belts for running the mill. They are not seized or mentioned. That itself shows that there were nothing to run the sawmill. Forest officers are supposed to be responsible officers and when they seized the purported blade and wheel how and for what purpose they did not mention its dimensions is nobody’s guess. This, coupled with the fact that having found alleged violation of law, the prosecution is then launched after a month and there is no explanation for this delay. No motor or engine is seized or even mentioned. Along with the fact that in the alleged saw mill not one piece of wood apart from two wooden frames of bed were found goes to show that the entire exercise was apparently mala fide. One cannot imagine a sawmill running without power, without any wood. Such can only be the case of a carpenter I, therefore, am constrained to hold that the seizure, as effected on the face of it, is not only illegal, arbitrary but mala fide. Petitioner is thus entitled for return of the seized commodities forthwith. The writ petition is thus allowed. Kundan (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)