,\p' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION.NO- f^l<4 / 2004 / g|;|»:!i§|;|[Bi| 'i'iiEii 4. Gyan Chand Luniya S/o Shri Ganesh Mal Luniya, Aged about 46 years, Resident of, Dalli Rajhara Balod.Dist: Durg-(C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur-(C.G.) The Collector, Through the Mining Department Kanker The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratapur Forest, District NorthBastar, Kanker(C.G-) The Deputy Ranger Bhanupratapur Dist • Kanker PETITIONER /A"^^ /^^y.'-. ^^c" <^^v ^.K- ^'^-••'- ^'" (><' ^'^ RFSPnNnFNTS -"••^'e^ .'•'""-. ^"\ WRIT PETITION IJNDER ARTICLF 226 & 227 OF THE 'll^ ^ — :'-^y " —Z-7,'fs; 1 :-^WJ3B.2?A }";; 1 '',^o^s }s! CnNSTITllTION OF IND1A .fSy/ff-''^- y^Y\! _^ ^^^' y PARTICULARS OF THE PFTITIONER s per cause title. PARTICUI-ARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As per cause title. XI-HC-22 311^1^1 W 311^1 ^^icb <-I^TI -TST •^IIM'i), tSTll'M'IS, (;1<'11'M'1< 3Tlt?T T^^ ,^.v-..PLa^.^ 11*<CTI Shlich 200 f^^Er' 3i1^t ?'RIIW ^f^I Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Ip the State/ respondents. S.D.0. (Forest) is pres| This order shaU also coijnsel for the petitioners. )eput5' Goverrunent Advocate for petitiotiers Nos. 1945/2004, 1946/2004 2105/2004, as the question| smiilar. The petitioners have Article 226/227 of the Con^ by the -order-dated 21.05.: respondent No.S-Divisiona} applications of the Suprudnama. I have heard fhe leamd Leamed coiinsel for 22.04.2004 the petitioners' CG-07-ZC-2056, CG-11-ZB|. 2069, CG07-ZC-2050 & iniaeral extracted from thel Lunia granted by the Stat^ were seized Ulegallv bv resl round of Ulegal mtaing. +l'i|l!'l'iil'1 *<|t|df'?fe3t <fat$it •^srfiOTsn^r ;nt in Coiirt. >vem the disposal of Writ Petition 1947/2004, 2104/2004 & involved ia these petitions is also preferred these petitions under ititution of India beuig aggrieved 004 (Annexure P-11) passed by Forest Offlcer r&jectiag the for release of vehicles on the ;d counsel for the parties. petitioners submitted that on |trucks bearing registration Nos. 51-0141, CQ07-C-2070, CG07-C- Cp07-ZC-4335 carrying iron ore valid mining lease of one AnU Govemiaent in fhe year 2002, >|3ondent Nos. 2 & 3 ona false IHe further submitted that the XI-HC-22 an^iqir l<-f 3T1^T St)^H yf^fl ^:;li%!tN? fcill..'!.:,. T5[ •<ll'i<lciq, a'fli'u'is, faMKHy 3n^?r xraq? WRPIT ^*11<S|) 'M 200 I^^T' aii^r ^giwgftg 'L= seyed petition^rs truGks in question were forest area, but the for the said route. On the ofher handl Advocate argued that the question were carrylng, was from fhe valid mtnins pavruent of road tax is petitioner ui coUusion wi1 departoient and on couiinj department had received tt( petitioner, departinental them and road tax pald by refunded. He further submj trucks in question were particularly for trucks tn qui| by fhe petitioner. Thereforej pertains to forest produce a strict view must be tai submitted that confiscationl ahother three months tiine I have perused the un^ In the order passed (Annexure P-11) it has b4 lea^e coticerned. •+l<4tcr1<4lT1 Hl^*'^ FsL<ii <^i+ri,K i73lfSgH 311^1 on the route falling under the have atready paid the road tax ttte acttion learned Deputy Government iron ore, which the trucks ia lextracted from the forest area not of Aiul Lunia. As far as the same was paid by the 1th soiue officials of the forest to know fhat soine officials of the Ue road tax in coUusion with fhe has been initiated against |the petitioner was ordered to be ttted that the route on which the is not a noti&ed route and istion no road tax have been paid he subinitted fhat since offence as per the Hon'ble Apex Court dfcen in this regard. He further Iproceeding is in progress and tn jfaat wiU be completed. ^ugned order dated 21.05.2004. py fhe Divlsional Forest Offlcer ;n mentioned that as per the setzed ahd XI-HC-22 'ysi '^W\v\tt, afll'M'is, (sKii^y 31T^?T iraq? inwii shiicb •M 200 (cl+ittSI' sn^i'^ii R-li+ 311^1 ^ffliich ef^f 311^1'FRrtWtriTO u «hl^f<vl41-ltIItRff'? fe3t <(«]*ftl< ^T3lf:OT 311^1 provisions of the Indian ^ issued by the Goveminent, ^orest Act, 1927 and guidelines there is no provision for releasing the vehicle aad property <^n Supurdguiania, therefore, the application ffled by fhe peti^ Section 53 of the AcD ioner is disinissed. , which deals wifti the release of property seized under Sect|ion 52 of the Act envisages that "anv forest officer of a ran3 who, or whose subordina^ vehicle or catUe under Sec the execution by the owner of the property so released fc not tnferior to fhat of a Ranger |e, has seized any tools, boats, |ion 52, niay release the same on |fhereof a bond for the production tf and when so requtred, before the Magistrate having juifsdiction to try fhe offence on account of which the seizur' Leamed counsel for has been made". |the petitioners submits that in place of fhe word 'carts' th^ word 'vehicle' has been inserted by the Act No.9 of 65, therefbre, ffae order of forest officer on the face of it appears to be iljlegal and the petitioner is entitled for release of fhe vehicles ort the conditions mentioned in the :minent Advocate subniitted that is likelv to take three nionths above clause. As leamed Deputy Gov| the confiscation proceedin^ tune, fherefore for such ^ long period if the vehicles in question are aUowed to reijnain in open area, it wUl cause damages to the vehicles aa(ji it luay become junk. In such a_ ~^% i:i J 1 Bi'l'f' I'E ^•^ ?-' ;• n i'it ^ '^ ii ^'!! It^jld^tes^' ^^^fU.rilM-, XI-HC-22 311^1 ^T R-ti.* aii^l *^ •^fscf -S^-^(PVvW,'^Ssw^, hvwy. 3Tlt?T ~^[3R tiiwii aiii°b "^ 200 i^^r" 311^1'ffRIIW^lfCT •NM- (<F B»i3 situation, I am of the opinio4 release the vehicles in for each vehicle on foUowins » The petitioner the tune of Rs.2 Officer, East Bastar, Kanker from today. * The petitioner wi4 vehicles to the the pendency of • The petitioner question before and when requirejd With the aforesaid o1 petition stands disposed of. Certilied copy as per ques]tlon sMaU Bha^iupratapur tllird th' Roshaii i '^ i? 1 -:; iL . M ^;)iirf^f'4iTi •pn'^t^f'^ r^*<^ <^i^i< ^;3lPtn3T^( that it will be just and proper to on fumishtng Suprudnaraa terrns and conditions:- furnish a bank guarantee to Lac before the Divisional Forest F'orest, District North p.G) wittun a period of two weeks not transfer or alienate the said party in any manner durin^ confiscation proceedmgs. (ffUl produce the vehicles in. Ihe Divisional Forest Officer as tiservation and directions, the RTfiles. Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge [qraw Kl