IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4597 of 2007 JITENDRA SINGH, son of Ram Deo Singh, resident of village + P.O. – Imamganj, P S – Imamganj, District – Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Aurangabad. 4. The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation through its Managing Director, Nehru Nagar, Patliputra Colony, Patna. 5. Divisional Manager, Minor Forest Protest Project Division, Gaya, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Gaya. 6. Range Officer, Sherghati Range, Sherghati, Gaya. 7. Officer-in-charge, Amba Police Station, District – Aurangabad. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ashustosh Ranjan Pandey. For the respondent Corporation : Mr. R K Shukla. --------- 07. 12.4.2010 Petitioner is a registered contractor with respondent Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. Bihar State Forest Development Corporation came to be conferred powers to deal with Kendu leaves. Certain legislation also was enacted by the State in this regard. The sum and short issue which emerges from the writ application is that the petitioner is supposed to have purchased 1026 bags of Kendu leaves which was collected in the year 2003 from the area known as Imamganj P.C. Lot vide supply order No.5 dated 23.2.2004. The Divisional Manager of the Corporation stationed at Gaya issued supply order and under the orders of the Range Officer the Kendu leaves were handed over to the petitioner to be kept at Sanda godown, in the district of Aurangabad. On 6.7.2004 petitioner sought permission from the Range Officer, Sherghati to issue transit permit for 2 transportation of 264 actual bags to be loaded on a truck for transportation. The truck was seized by the Divisional Forest Officer from the godown saying that the transportation was illegal as the petitioner did not have any valid permit in this regard. From the totality of the pleadings atleast from the stand of the respondent Forest Development Corporation there is evidence to show that some sale was effected in favour of the petitioner but they are not in a position to certify whether the quantity which came to be seized was the quantity sold by the said Corporation. But they are now willing to take responsibility to the extent of sale that was effected in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner has transgressed and has breached any law beyond the same, the responsibility is that of the petitioner. The stand of the Divisional Forest Officer is otherwise. According to the counter affidavit the seizure was effected in absence of proper permit in this regard and no transportation can be made without his permission. The Court need not delve into all the issues or the illegality of the action of the Divisional Forest Officer but one thing needs to be clarified that if the petitioner who happens to be a registered contractor with the Bihar Forest Development Corporation has made bonafide purchase to the extent borne out from Anneure-1 series, then the petitioner has a right of removal of the purchased Kendu leaves and the DFO ought not to create 3 impediment in an otherwise legal activity. However, if the petitioner has transgressed law in the guise of the purchase and beyond the amount which has been indicated in Annexure-1 series, then this is yet another issue. The writ application stands disposed of with a direction that the concerned authority of the Forest Development Corporation will issue transit permit of Kendu leaves to the extent sale has been effected in favour of the petitioner, and the DFO will release that quantity in favour of the petitioner forthwith. If there is excess amount the Court has no observation with regard to those seized stocks. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )