IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1062 of 2009 SIKANDER MAHTO s/o Bhikhar Mahto, resident of village- Sakraul, P.S. Inarawa, District- West Champaran....Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. The Collector, Bettiah, West Champaran. 3. The Designated Officer- cum- District Forest Officer-cum- Deputy Director, Valmiki Tiger Project, Champaran Division-1, Bettiah. 4. The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5. The Forest Range Officer, Manguraha, West Champaran. 6. The Forest Area Officer, Manguraha, West Champaran. .....Respondents ----------- 4 26.3.2010 Petitioner is the owner of a Tractor –cum- Trailer .The said Tractor –cum- Trailer was allegedly seized for committing a forest offence of removing stone bolder from river bed of about 50 Cft of stone from the sanctuary area. Pursuant to notice issued to the petitioner, he has appeared. Petitioner objected to the confiscation proceeding pointing out that his tractor has been wrongly seized and he has falsely been implicated merely because the tractor used to be given frequently to State officials for various official works. When the petitioner started pressing for payment, which was long over due , all this has been come down. It was pointed out that if, in fact, the petitioner was found involved in this thing of 50Cft stone bolder from sanctuary area there ought to have some machine instruments and device because it is not possible for an individual to do the same. None has been seized. So far other seizures are concerned, it was prayed that a fresh enquiry be ordered before proceeding any further. District Forest Officer, who was the confiscating authority considered the matter and - 2 - being prima facie satisfied with the contention of the petitioner, ordered for a fresh enquiry but while doing so, he entrusted the enquiry to the same very officer, who had allegedly seized the tractor and lodged prosecution against the petitioner. It was virtually going from Caesar to Caesar .The enquiry report having been received notwithstanding protest of the petitioner, based on the said enquiry report, the tractor has been ordered to be confiscated, which order has not been interfered with in appeal. Mr. Satyavrat Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once District Forest Officer was convinced that the matter needed fresh enquiry before proceeding further then it goes without saying that the enquiry had to be by an impartial person and entrusting the enquiry to the same very person, who had conducted earlier enquiry defeating the whole object as the said person could never report that what he had earlier reported was wrong. The second enquiry serve no purpose. Relying on the second enquiry, the order having been passed, the order stands vitiated. In my view, the order impugned as affirmed in appeal suffers from grave procedural infirmity. Once District Forest Officer prima facie satisfied that the matter required re- enquiry , then natural justice demanded that the enquiry be entrusted to an impartial person, who would enquire in unbiased mind. Entrusting enquiry to the same very person who had submitted the first report and initiated prosecution against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. That was an eye wash. That report having been acted upon for the purposes of - 3 - confiscating the tractor, the order also would stand vitiated. In view of the aforesaid,the orders of District Forest Officer and the Collector, Bettiah in appeal cannot be sustained and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Forest Officer for a reconsideration and further order in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. As the tractor is a commercial commodity and would deteriorate if permitted to stand still, I direct District Forest Officer to conclude the proceeding within a period of six months from the date the order is a produced before him. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)