.(ajS^^'^Tto-^^trfWw^^.c.^^^^t?^ 8 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : JABALPUR, ^. Writ Petition.No. f^^> 6 /1998. PETITIONER K.Ramarao S/o Shri L.Survanaravan Eao, aaed about 45 years,Occupation-Business,R/ Pendra Road, Bilaspur. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1-State of Madhya Pradesh Through : Secretarv, Forest Department,Vallabh Bhawan, Bhooal. 2- The Conservator of Eorest Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur. 3- Divisional Forest Officer,North BiIaspur.Van Mandal, Bilaspur. 4- Sub Diwisional Officer (Forest),(Territorial) , Pendra Road, Bilaspur. PETITION ONDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRIT/WRITS.ORDER/ ORDERS OR DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS ETC- i.-^g 70 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 1836/1998 Petitioner : K. Ramarao VERSUS Respondents State of M.P. and others. Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Amrito Das learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sandeep Dubey learned GA for respondents. ORDER (Passedon^^.11-2005) I Dhirendra Mishra. J By the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the ConsUtution of India the petittoner has prayed for issuance <rf a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to return the vehicte of the petitioner to him in running condiUon which was seized by the forest authoriUes in connection with some forest offence and to further direct the respondents to pay compensation and damages tor illegal and arbitrary seizure of his vehicle and subsequently retaining it wi them without any authority of law. 2. The brief fads of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of ttie truck which was seized on the ground of illegat transportatton of forest goods. An applicatlon for interim custody of tt»etruck in question durmg the confiscatfon proceedlngs was also rejected. However, the Competent Authority vide order dated M.8.1995 directed the conflscation <sS the truck of the petitioner. The petiBoner preferred an appeal against ttie said order of confiscationalong with an application for interim custody ofthevehicle. However, the appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Auttiority on 11.3.1996. Against order dated 11.3.1996 the petifioner preferred a revislon petition in the Court of Sesslons Judge Bilaspur. During ttie pendency of the said revision petiUon the petitiwier also preferred an application for jnterim custody of the truck in quesUon. ii-; —2-- n <7" 3. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30.9.1996 aHowed the revision petition of ttie petitioner and quashed the order of conflscation. The revisional Court also directed rehim of the seized truck to the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondents/authorities kept the vehtele so seized in an unprotected and condemned condition. 4. The petitioner moved an application on 18.10.1996 before ttie S.D.O (Forest), Pendra Road for returning of the truck vide annexure P-5 upon which the petitioner was directed to take back the truck after compteting necessary formaltties. htowever, when the petitioner found ttiat the truck was lying in unprotected and condemned conditlon, he called a mechanre to check thetruck. The mechanic after checking Uie vehicle opined that it was not at all in running conditfon as number of parts and machinery of it were stolen and it has turned into junk. Uttimately, the petitioner retumed back without taking the truck in quesUon. However, on 3.12.1996 a memo was sent to the Range Offteer Pendra Road by the Range Assistant to prepare the Panchnama of the tnxsk on spot. Accordingly, Panchnama was prepared vide annexiire P-7 mentioning that fhe petitioner hadeome to recefvethe truck as per the order of the Court but on inspection thereof he went back without the truck. It is further pteided that a legal notice dated 3.12.1996 as per annexure P-8 was sent to the SDO (Forest) asking him to retum the truck to the peUtioner in running eondition. In reply dated 6.12.1996 to the saki legal notice the allegations made bythe petitioner were denied stating that he had already directed to return the truck to the petiBoner but the petitioiwr hlmself was not receiving the same on pretext or the other. The Range Officw vide memo dated 3.9.1997 directed the petitioner to take back ttie truck after completing necessary formalities vide document of annexure P-11. Panchnama dated 5.9.1997 as per annexure P-12 was prepared by Vne Range Officer in the presence of the pettUoner, his meehanic and other persons aswell. 5. It is sutxnitted on behatf of the petitioner that the officers of the respondents ill^ally seized ttie vehicle in quesUon and did not keep it Bini-t •^•: •t' °°°)' ( safely and as a result of which various parts <rf it were mlssing rendering the same useless. 6. The respondents in their retum have dated that as per the order of the Sessions Court ttie petitioner vlsited the Forest Authorities on 28.11.1996 and saw the vehicle. Thereafter, Panchnama of annexure R-1 was prepared in the presence of the petitioner and SB( other persons including the mechanic taken by ttie petitioner. The petiUoner again visited their Offtee on 5.9.1997 and took away the vehicte under protest reserving his right to file suit after execuUng the ctocumert of annexure R-2 belng the receipt of the vehtete. Panchnama as per annexure R-3 was also prepared on the same day and after preparation of Panchnama and execution of receipt the vehicle was handed over to ttie peBttoner. Thus the order of Sessions Court has been duty complied witti by the r^pondents and the vehicle was released accordingly. It is further submitted by the respondents that the relief claimed by the peUUoner cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction as the same fatls wittun the domain of the Civil Court and as such the petitK>n for payment of compensation and damages is not maintainable. The petitioner also filed rejoinder to the return and submitted that he dkl not take back the truck on 5.9.1997 asalleged by the respondente as the truck was not in running condffion because of various parts having been stolen. Atong with the rejoinder photographs of the vehicle taken on 16.9.20(% have also been filed to demonstrate Ihat ttie truck fs lying in the premises of fte respondents in a shattered condttion. He has also fried the rate list of various parts of the truck along wtth Uie application dated 17.11.2005. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submlts Vnat from the perusal of the documents annexed with the petiUon admitted by the respondents it is manifestly clear that the vehicle in quesUon was in custody of the respondents in connection with the forest offence which was subsequentty ordered to be returned to the petiUoner by the leamed Sessions Judge. However, because ofthenegtigence ofthe offlcera ofthe r^pondents Uie truck in question completely turned into junk by the time it was ordered to •^' il::ir"-T -tl ;3 ^: be retumed by the Competent Court which is evident from the documents annexedwlth the petftion as well with the retum. 8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the award of compensation and damages under writ jurisdiction are concemed, in appropriate cases the award of damages may be awarded in the writ petitlon also and in support ofthis contention fte relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ABL Intemtional Ud and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corooration of India Ltd and others reported in (M04) 3SCC SSS . Relying on the above decision of the Apex Court learned counsel for the petttioner submits that normally a writ petitfon involving serious disputed questions of facts which requires consideration of evidence whteh is not on record, will not normally be entertained by a court in exereise <rf its jurisdiction under Artide 226 of the Constitution, but there is no absolute rute that in all cases involving disputed questions of fact the parties should be relegated to a cwil suit. It is furttier aigued that in the instant case the factum of seizure and subsequent release by the competent Court is not disputed. It is ateo not disputed that at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle in question it was not found in running condition as is evidentfrom the Panchnama filed by the respondents ateo. So far as the quantum of compensation is concemed, the petitioner has annexed the rate list of various parts vriiich were found missing from the truck vkle applicaUon dated 1 7.11.2005. 9. On the other hand leamed counsel for the respondents whemently opposes the contention of the petitioner and submits that the vehicle was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner way baek in the year 1996 and he took the possession of the same also on 5.9.1M7 reserving his right to file the.suit and on thatday Panchnama was ateo prepared which bears the signature ofthe peh'tioner as also his advocate and other witnesses. In this document itself the petitioner has mentioned that he obtained the fruck and he would take the samewith him within a week there from as per his convenience. However, in stead of taking the vehlcle from the place where it is lying he is flled the instant petition. tt is further submitted that the petittoner has fifed this pedh'on without quantHyingthe damages ^r- 74 and the same can be ascertained only by way suU in the court of competent jurisdiction as it is a disputed quesUon of fact which requires recording ofevidence. 10. I have tearned counsel for the parfies and gone through the material available on record, 11. From the pleadings of the respective parties it transpires thatthe petitioner dkl not take the vehicle on the first occasion. However, subsequently he got the vehtete inspected with the assistance of a mechanic and found that number of parte were missing from it as is detailed in document of annexure R-3. However, he obtained the same under protest reserving his right to file suit. Thereafter in stead offiling sult the instant petition has been filed by him. 12. The only question that has to be decided in this case is whether claim of the petitioner for compensation and damages against the respondents may be settled on the basis of pleadings and documents available on record or not. There is no doubt that in appropriate cases where damages/claims are quantified and there is no dispute regarding the same and the only questton to be deekled Is the entitlement of the same, in such cases in writ petitionalso damages may be awarded. But in the instant case there is not only a dispute regardtng entittement of the damages but another disputed fact is also invoh^ed such as - whether the vehicle in question was in fact obtained by the petftioner as per the order of the Competent Court or who in fact was responsible for the delay in the delivery of the vehicle to the petjthMier as the respondents have stated in their return that they were ready and willing to rehim thevehicle as per the direction of th®Sessions Court in the year 1996 itself and ttie same could not be retumed because of deliberate in-actton on ttie part of the petitioner. 13. (n view of the aforesaid discussiwi 1 am of opinion that the instant case is not one where the petitioner can be awarded compensation fer the alleged wrong done by the respondents resulting in damage to the vehicle while it wasin the custody of the respondents. ^' 4- 75 14. Resultantly, it is held ttiat the pefitioner can not be awarded damages or compensation by the instant petition as disputed qu^tion arising for adjudication can not be decided in the instant proceedingS. 15. Wrth the aforesaid observations the p^fUonJs disposed of. sd./- DhirendraMishra Judge