m ‘IHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATU$ AT BILASPUR ( CHHQG.) WRIT PETITION N0, LI {/2000 } p PEITITIONER Mahavir Prasad Agrawal sari of aari Jagatram Agrawal aged about 4Q years; R/o Patthalgaan Di st‘c .Jashpur Nagar (Quhatti sgarh) L; WARSU$ ~ A RESPONDENTS n-” 1. State of Clrmattisgarh 'Ihrough Secretary. Fomst mpartwent¢ Mantralaya i Raipur (Chh at’c isg arh) 2. Conservator cf Forest Bilaspur Circle , Bilgsgar mmG. ) wnpetent Authority—cum— Suba Di vi sional Offi car (Forast ) maramj aig arh Disttg Raigarh C Chhatt isga‘rh) PETITIOiUNm’R ARTICLE? 225(221 OF THE) CONSTITUIYION OF INDIA “Hwhmww ( V ‘5‘, H k '5‘ ,, a ;— a VB i: 2 I V‘ ‘r n7 k nh h CELey-wsk: LmtLhbfw: ' 9 g, w? %%%W it P’t“£1 n N .4 ooo 2h;j3#2ooo / V fiurjihg jehd’ehcy .o‘f: the appeéi. .before fhe Consérvator'é£" Forést, Truck‘N6§MP—26/Dghé7é be released inl’his ’fa’vour'i‘oh “ proper terms and whaitioh’s.’ The x$e£i£ibner, in ' s‘uppVio’rt' ofihis’ case; has relied up'o'n" iih‘e" earli er> Orders' whieh were pessed in his fayé by. thei‘del‘jartmerrt e0 also by' " the High Court. One ‘sgch orc‘er’ is anhexed tb the-petitioh'as Aphemiee‘P—z in which the‘High Shri Prakash Bhave, M learnéd 'counéel for‘the K _ petitioner. ¥ . , r' Dr;N.K.Shuk1a, learned Deputy Adyocatg’ i ‘ ‘G‘eneral for the respondehts. The matt‘ek'kr isiinali h'ea’rd. _ V By this petition, under Article 2‘27 of the L canstikutian o: India,‘£he ” petitioner‘seeks’rélié£ithat §~ he na DE rur 4/‘ 0t. ‘ » Wma‘ifma) mmmm WW‘§@W éiSrF-atlm tiele in question shall :terms and condltlons of t? :pendency of. conflscatlon g :terms and oondltlons were required to furnlsh solver Rs l; OO 000/ (Rupees Four guarantee of Rs.1 OO GOO/- appears that the conflscat an end and thereafter in t vehicle in dlspute has bee department 1n accOrdance u The grlevance cf that since June, 2600‘ nel nor orders on hls interim therefore, this Court must direct to release of the 1 Dr N K Shukla, le submits that as the procee NO a 3 , Comp et ent Autho r3.ty- (Forest) , Dhara‘mjaigarh, I an end, there muld be no Truck in favour‘ovf the pet if the Truck is to be rele petitioner instead of sol must be taken to protect t e interest of the State. After hearing th parties, /- -2- rcourt ordered that the ver V continue in custody of the petitioner on the original urd gi during the ‘ receedings. The earlier that the petitioner was t security tothe tune o Lakhs)*and furnish a ban (Rupees One’ Lakh) It ion preceedings came to he month of November, the n seized by‘ the forest ith the confiscation order . the petitioner appears to be ther his appealibeing heard application are being passed, intervene and interfere and ruck _ _ arned counsel forthe State; dings :b’eforer the respondent 7 cum—subeDivisionai a Officer’_< v f istrict Raigarh have come to propriety in releasing the itioner. According to him, a'sed in favour of the ent security, the bank guarantee I am of the opinion L :bnt‘d. ‘ —-FS/4—~4/99—-20 000 f ’ k ‘\ V°i>) .‘ i , 4 , H - Wm,mmvct1hattisgarhgBiléspur. v \‘l‘ V ’7 Wrlt Petltlon No.45/2000 mm : m 199 X