EF“ A ~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1928 of 2002 M/s. Jamnadas Morarji (A Partnership Firm) Through Partner Karsan Das, Nandai Chowk Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus PETlTlONER: 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of C.G. Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: 2. The Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. The Sub Divisionai Officery Forest Ambagarh Chowkw Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. Bhau Rao s/o Pandurang Bohre. Driver, R/o Nandai Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) {Writ petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Manoj Jaiswai, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sushii Dubey, Govt. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (7—12-2011) 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 26-4-2002 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.86/2001, affirming the order dated 15-10- 2001 passed by the appellate authority, affirming the order dated 30-4— 2001 passed by the authorized officer, Ambagarh Chowki, whereby the matador bearing registration No.MP-24/C-1727, owned by the petitioner herein, has been confiscated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other orders. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question, he was transporting Tendu leaves under the Ky direction of Manager Chintaram Mandavi of the Prathamik Van Upaj Sahkari Samiti. As per orders impugned, the petitioner was caught red- handed by villagers whiie he was transporting Tendu Ieaves from coilection point. In accordance with Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, confiscation proceeding was initiated and tinaily order for confiscation of the vehicie in question has been passed which was chailenged before the Iower appeiiate Court and the Iower appellate Court has affirmed the order Which was further challenged in the revisional Court and the revisional Court has also affirmed the order passed by the authorized officer. 4. On the other hand, Iearned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner was transporting Tendu leave‘é'ilvithout any authority and he was caught red-handed by villagers. 5. As per statement of the petitioner and evidence adduced before the authorized officer on behalf of the Forest Department, the petitioner was acting under the direction of the Manager of the Prathamik Van Upaj Sahkari Samiti who was having sufficient control over the property. This is not the case in which the petitioner has committed theft or the petitioner has committed forest offence at his own instance, inter alia, he was transporting Tendu leaves under the direction of the Manager of the Prathamik Van Upaj Sahkari Samiti who was authorized to direct the petitioner for transportation of forest produce. In these circumstances, virtually, the alleged Manager was under obligation to obtain and produce transit pass. Therefore, vehicle of the petitioner was not liable for confiscation. By confiscating the vehicle and affirming the order, the revisional court, the appellate court and the authorized officer have committed illegality. 6. Consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. Order dated 26-4-2002 passed by the 1S‘. Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No.86/2001 and order dated 15-10- 2001 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. Order dated 30—4-2001 passed by the authorized officer, Ambagarh Chowki, relating to confiscation of vehicle in question i.e. matador bearing registration No.MP—24/C-1727 is also quashed. No order as to costs. l i l Soma Sd/- T.P Shanna: Judge WW