IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9343 of 2009 Rajesh Kumar, Son of Ram Pratap Sah, resident of Mohalla-Bari Bazar, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Munger. 4. The District Forest Officer, Munger. -Respondents. ----------- 03 09.11.2009 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent and in particular the District Forest Officer, Muner, respondent no.4 to release the boulders & ballasts seized from Railway Yard, Jamalpur on 16.04.2002 and 19.04.2002. It appears that Railways had issued a tender for supply of boulders & ballasts for its use. Petitioner tendered and was selected. To fulfill the terms of tender petitioner had purchased boulders & ballasts from one Ram Pratap Sah, who has a valid quarry lease in this regards. While the boulders & ballasts were lying in the Railway Yard, Jamalpur for transportation by Railways, they were seized by the Forest Officials. Apart from the boulders & ballasts in respect of which petitioner is concerned, similar seizure was made with another lots of boulders & ballasts similarly lying in there which related to one Prem Prakash Narayan. Pursuant to the aforesaid seizure two confiscations proceedings were initiated being Confiscation Case Nos. 15 & 16 of 2002 before the Forest Officer, Jamalpur Forest Range. In both these proceedings confiscation orders were - 2 - passed. Petitioner and the other person both preferred confiscation appeal before the Collector, Munger which were numbered as Confiscation Appeal Nos.07 of 2003-04 and 04 of 2002-03 in respect of the other person. Both the confiscation appeals were taken up and ultimately both were allowed. Thus, it was held by the Collector under the Forest Act that the forest case for confiscation was not in accordance with law. Against these two, revisions were preferred by the Forest Department before the Secretary, Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, being Revision Case No.23 of 2005, as preferred in the case of petitioner and the other was registered as Revision Case No.04 of 2005. For some reason the revision as against the order in relation to petitioner remained pending. The other revision application is being 04 of 2005, was taken up and the Principal Secretary has dismissed the revision by order dated 08.11.2007, affirming the order of the Collector, Munger in appeal holding that no case of confiscation was made out. Petitioner on basis of principles of para materia ruling submits that normally the revision application so far as petitioner is concerned, should meet the same fate. He further submits that the Collector having found that there were no grounds for confiscation, the Forest Authorities were bound to let the petitioner remove the boulders and ballasts, as they ceased to be subject matter of confiscation. This Court by earlier order dated 06.08.2009 had directed the Principal Secretary, Environment and - 3 - Forest to deliver judgment in petitioner’s case in which orders were reserved as far back as on 18.12.2008 within two weeks. Unfortunately that has not been done and now the case has been fixed for rehearing after notice to all parties on or about 26.11.2009. Learned counsel for the State points out that the delay was unintentional inasmuch as the Principal Secretary had changed and the new Secretary was then deputed as Central Observer in elections in Maharashtra. Be that as it may, in view of the facts noted above and in view of the fact that no confiscation order is now pending against the petitioner and under similar circumstances revision case having already been dismissed affirming the order of the Appellate Authority, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the boulders and ballasts as seized in the present case to continue, they have already been there for 7 years. I, therefore, direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Munger to release the boulders and ballasts, which is subject matter of Confiscation Case Nos.15 & 16 of 2002, so far as it concerns the petitioner, this shall be release forthwith and would however be subject to the ultimate result of the revisional order if any. The writ petition, thus, stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)