HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMTPETITION (C)iNO. 3203/2007 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDBNTS Devendra Singh Bhatia son of Sunder Siugh Bhatia, aged about 51 years, R/o Patfhalgaon, Tahsil PatthalgaDn, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Truck Owner) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Forest, Dau Kalyau Siagh Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, BUaspur (Chhatdsgarh) Divisional Forest Of&cer/ Competent Prescribed Authority, Forest Division Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) I?/>t^3C?-j ruicoi Raagc /^tflK/^^y v^JJ-L'L/1-A r GI'CST KSuQ.gS 2. 3. Chal, Sub-Division Dharaiaiaigarh, District Ra^arh (C.G.) 5. Shiv Shankar Shanna son of Bholaram Sharma, aged about 50 years, R/o village Khadgaon, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CON8TITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'Me Mt. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. A. N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. None for the respondent No. 5. . ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 25/07/2011) By fhis petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India petitioner has chaUenged fhe legality and propriety of fhe order dated 16/4/2007 passed by 3rt Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) ia Crimmal Revision No. 41/2007 affirmmg the order dated 12/2/2007 passed by AppeUate Authority under Forest Act in Appeal Case No. 37/2006, aBirming the order of coii&scation ofTmck No. CG-14A/0731 owned by present petitioner. Mr. A.N. Bhakta, leamed counsel for fhe petitioncr aud Mr. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for fhe State/respondents No. 1 to 4 are heard. Order impugned aud copy ofofher docuinents perused. ^- ._.:-_^ K. ''^isx^ -^- 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that inuch before fhe aUeged forest offeuce dated 26/2/2006, present petitioner has given truck iu luonthly rent to respondent No. 5 Shiv Shaakar Sharma vide agreeinent dated 10/1/2006 in which it has been specificaUy mentioned that Sbiv Shaakar Sharma wUl not use the vehicle for illegal purpose but as per m.aterial coUected on behalf of fhe Forest Department, iUegal traasporting of forest property was carried out by respondent No. 5 Shiv Shankar Sharma. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner furtlier submits that it was not wifhin the knowledge of present petitioner therefore, his property i.e. truck caiuiotbe con.fiscated. 6. On the other hand, learaed counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 to 4 opposed the petition aad subniits that present petitioner has failed to proof the fact that he has been taken proper precaution as required under the provisions ofForest Act. 7. Order impugned aud copy of AppeUate order reveal fhat as per stateinent of D.C.R. Bh^at; Rauger, ofiFence has not been coinmitted wifh the consent of present petitioner or under his silence aud kaowledge. Order unpugned reveals that wbile exercisiag fhe power under revisioiial jurisdiction, revisional Court has not examined the records. In order to exami&e fhe legality aad propriely of the order im.pugaed, in the Hght ofaforesaid stateinent ofD.C.R. Bbaaat, Rsmger, fhe Court below was under obligation to examine the records whether the petitioner bas discharged his burden iu fhe l^ht of provisions of Forest Act. Consequenfly, order unpugued is not sustamable uader fhe law aud in. exercise ofwritjurisdiction order impugned is quashed aad case. is remanded back to fhe 3rd Additional Sessfons Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) for providiag opportunity ofheadng to the petitioner aad to pass the order afresh. In case of any ambiguily relating to such burden and ^' '.r^^ f & . 'VSsSS^, S ::y .»:• -3- fhe facts required to be proved by the Forest Department, Revisional Court is at liberty to pass such order includirig order rem.auding fhe case, wifh fhese above observations petldon is stands disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, BUaspur (C.G.) on 16/8/2011 for furfher progress of ttie case. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Shamia Judge a