@7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI§§ARH A1 MLASPUR WRIT PETITION {an} no. 1812007 ‘ \'\ PETITIOENRB 1. State of Chhamsgrh Thmugh The Fomst Range 0mcer Pandanya East Kabudham Dlstnct Kabudham (Kawardha) Chhattisgarh. 2.‘ The Authorized OEcer, Sub Divisional Omccr (Forest), Pandariya, District Kabitdhan (Kawagdha), Chhatu‘sgarh. RESPONDENT: Nand Kumar Ojha S/o Jhuran Lal Ojha Aged about 39 years, R/o Pandariya, District Kabiniham (Kawatdha) Chham'sgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE GONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.$harma, J.) Present Shn Sushll Dubey, GA for the State/pet1tlonem Shn V C Ottalwar Advocate Wtth Shn RaJeev Shrwastava, Advocate for the respondent ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 09/08/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and pmprjety of the omer dated 25/ 5/ 2006 passed by 9th Addin'onal sessions Judge (F.’I‘.C.), Durg in criminal mision No. [166/2005 whereby learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dmg has quashed the, order of conhscation dated 2/11/2004 passed by Authon‘zed O$cer and order passed by Appellate Authon‘ty vide order dated 9/6/ 2005 in forest odence No. 60/07 on the ground that without complym'g the mandatory provisions contained in Section 15(5)(b)(c)(d) of the Madhya Pralesh ‘Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (in short ‘the Adhim'yam, 1969’). Forest Authority has passed the cider of connscation which is not sustainable under the law. 2. Shn Suslul Dubey, GA for the State/petitioners and Shn VC Ottalwar Advocate With Shn Rajeev Shnvastava, Advocate for the respondent are heard. a Order impugned, copy of onier passed by Authoriwd omr & Appellate Authority pcruscd. Older passed by Authorized 0&cer reveals that Authorized Authority has complied the provisions of Clause .(a) of sub-Sec‘ion 5 of Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1969 but it does not mm tho compliance of pmvisions of clause (b) (c) (d) of sub-Section 5 of Section 15 of the Adhim'yam, 1969 which is mandatory provisions. Section 15(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1969 reads as follows: - ‘15(5)— No order ooryisoating any property shall be made under subsection (4) unless the authorised (wioer (a) sends an intimation informs presen‘bed about initiation of proceedings for ooryismtt‘on of property to the Magistrate having jurisdidion to try the ojfenoe on account of whidt the seizure has been made; (h) issues a notice in writing to the person from whim the property is seized, an to any other person who may appear to the authorised o$cer to have some interest in suchproperty; (c) a$rds an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be speajied in the notice against the pmposed confiscation; and \ (d) gives to the opicer or person ¢ewng the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on the date to be fixed for sudt purpose.” 5. ln absence of any opportunity to the respondent, any oxder of connscaion was illegal parse and only on the basis of statement of respondent by Authorized OEcer without providing an opportunity of reply to him is not su$cient to legalize the illegality committed by Authorized Omccr, I do not » 2?, C93) ‘ mm any megahty 1n the onier unpugled requmng any mmrkrence 1n wemme Junsdmtlon Consequently, penuon 15 habit to b6 dismissed and is hemby diamissed. St§/-' T.P. Sharma Judge 7" of superwsory wnt No order as to costs.