^^ assiig IS'SF .^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON No. 2975 of2005 PETITIONER : State of Chhattisgarh, through the Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon Divisioii, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Jantu Ram Chandrawanshi S/b Late Dhanlcar Chandrawanshi, R/'o Village Thailitola, P.0. Gendatola, istrict Rajnandeaon (C.G.) ^-MT PETmON UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DsTDIA SB: Hou'Me Shri gatish K. AenBiotri. J. ^ Prssent: Sl-u'i A.S.Kachhwafaa, Deputy Advocate General for the State/petitioner. (Passed on 06 day of Januan', 2009) By this petition, the petitioner-State impugns the order dated 23 March, 2005 (Amiexiire P'l) passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Crimiiial Case No. 259/2003 wherebythe order dated 02.06.2003 (Annexiire P/6) passed by the Coiisenrator ofForest in appeal, was affirmed, The indisputable faets, in brief, are that in the inten-ening night of 9.5.2002/10.5.2002, on inspection, it was found that one Tractor aad Trolley bearing No. CG-08-5289 and 5290 respectiveiy, loaded with timber of Babul, Kariii and Kauhwa, was being unloaded near a saw-mill. A case was registered by the Sub Divisional OfBcer (Forest) (for short 'the S.D.O.') underthe provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'the Act, 1927'). The S.D.O. wliile exercisiEg his power under section 52(4Ya) ofthe Act, 1927 read with sectioii 4(2) ofthe Chhattisearh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2001, comiscated tiis said Ti-actor aiid^-TToUev vvith 4 trees ~of Babul. 4 trees of Karhi aiid 2 trees of Kaiiha admeasuring 1.917 cu.mts. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal befbre the Coaservator of Forest. The Coiiser'.'ator ofForest, in appeal, after having examined all the aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that the entire proceedings initiated by the "'^. i-.^."WSSss i ;"BS| j ^. "-••^'' A.fl" g»a S.D.0. - competent authoriU' was aot just and proper and accordingly, released the disputed tractor and trolley on payment of Rs. 2000/- along'with the coiifiscated tuTiber. The 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in criminal case, after having e.xarained all the aspects, came to the conclusion that the fmdings recorded 'by tlis Consen'ator of Forest that the woods seized by Qie competent airthorit\' was different than what was confiscated at the final stage. The confiscated trees wsre under the ownership of the petitioner and no-obiection-certificate was issued bv ^ the Sarpanch which carinot be held as illegal. The respondent was taking the said trees from his own land witli the pennissioa ofthe Sarpanch as pemiissible under the law, to Dubey Saw Mill. The said timbers are firewoods and as such. no pemiission offorest officer is required. 4. I have heard leamed counsel fbr the petitioner, perused the pleadings, judgmem and orders passed by the authorities under the Court below. I am of the opinioa tbat the reasons recorded bv the Conservator of Forest in his order dated 02.06.2003 and confirmed by the order dated 23.03.2005 Passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, is just and proper and it does not waiTant aiiy mterfereace. Even othei-wise, the impugiied order was passed on 23 March, 2005. The State, after filing of the petition has not taken any step except seeking adjoumiTieiit on 15.7.2005, 26.8.2008 and thereafter on 26.9.2008. The disputed Tractor and Trolley has already been handed over to tlie petitioner and tlie woods seized by the competent authority v»asfound as firewood. Thus, it is not desirable to mterfere at this stage. 5. , For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto ;osts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge