Sukh Chain Singh S/o Late Karnail Singh Aged abcut 42 years, Resident of, CCMTP Nagar, Bhilai, Durg Dist: Durg-(C.G.) PETITIONER \!_=r,u, l‘n‘ State of Chhattisgrh Through the Secretary Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur—(C.G.) 2. The Collector, V ?~ ica‘éo . Through the Mining Department “:5 ‘ Kanker 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratapur Forest, District North Bastar, Kanker(C.G.) Rg$PQhtDE ; blT§ As per case title. [t u PQ PART!QL!DAR§ QE "El-ii RESQQgMIS As per cause title. XLHC-ZZ WW mm . wpm‘mlbqn 200 004 (Annexure P—ll) passed by Forest. Officer rejecting the applications of the petitiohers for release of vehicles on Suprudnama. f I have heard the learm Learned counsel for t] 22.04.2004 the petitioners’ CG-O7—ZC-2056, CG— 1 l-ZB 2069, CGO7—ZC—2050 81s C ”mineral extracted from the Shri SumeSh Bajaj, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. S.D.O. (Forest) i$ present in Court. This order shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition 4; 1947/2004, 2104/2004 :33 involved in these petitions is also Nos.}945/2004, 1946/20£ 2 105/‘2004, as the question similar. preferred these petitions under The petitioners have Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved bv‘ the order-dated 21.052 respondent Noi3-Divisionzn 3d counsel for the parties ae petitioners submitted that on trucks bearing registration Nos 0141, CG07—C—2070, CG07—C- GO7—ZC—4335 carrying iron ore valid mining lease of one Anil Lunia gamed by the State Government in the year 2002, were seized illegally by res gromid of illegal mining. i i pondent Nos. 2 & 3 on a false §He further submitted that the Shri RS. Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioners /H m mm WW Wmmw WW WW amfmm mw 30.07.2004 mmwm g2;— trucks in question wars seized on th6 route falling under the forest area, but the petitioners have already aid the road tax for the said route. On the other hand Advocate argued that the question were carrying, was from the valid mining lease of Anil Lunia. As far as the payment of road tax is concerned; same was paid by the petitioner in collusion with some oiiicials of the forest department and on coming learned Deputy Government iron ore, which the trucks in extracted from the forest area not to know that some officials of the department had received the road tax in collusion with the petitioner, departmental action has been initiated against them and road tax paid by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded. He further submitted that the route on which the trucks in questionwwere seized is not a notified route and particularly for trucksin question no road tax have been paid by the petitioner. Therefore i he submitted that since offence xpertains to forest produce and as perthe Hon'ble Apex Court a strict view must be submitted that confiscation. a another three months time I have perused the im 'In the order passed (Annexure 13-11} it has b . ,/t en in this regard. Hefurther proceeding is in progress and in t wilibe completed. ugned order dated 2 1.05.2004. y the Divisional Forest Officer en inentioned that as per the p ~ a W man WW WmA $Wm mmmm 4,1; provisions of tha Indian Forest Act, 1927 and guidelines issuad by the Government, there is no provision for reieasing The vehicle and property on Supurdginama, therefore, the application flled by the peti‘ioner is dismissed. Section 53' of the A which deals with the release of property seized under Sec 'on 52 of the Act envisages that “any forest officer of a r not inferior to that of a Ranger who, or whose subordina e, has seized any toois, boats) vehicle or cattle under Sec 'on 52, may release the same on the execution by the owner 1ereof a bond for the production of the property so released if and when so required, before the Magistrate having j sdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizur has been made”. Learned counsel for e petitioners submits that in place of the word ‘carts’ th word ‘vehicle’ has been inserted by the Act No.9, of 65, there ore, the order of forest officer on the face of it appears to be gal and the petitioner is entitled for release of the vehicles o the conditions mentioned in the above clause As learned Deputy G .uthe conflscation proceedi time, therefore for such long period if the vehicles in question are allowed to r ain in open area, it will cause damages to the vehicles a it may become junk. in such a rw"" “‘"w ..II./\ \ mment Advocate submitted that is likely to ta“ three months o n c , ‘ e e n \ XLHC-izz .aié‘mm WM mama-{1&3 situation, l am of the opinion that it will be just and proper to release the vehicles in question on furnishing Suprudnama for ea'ch'vehi'cie on following terms and conditions:— f o The petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee to Lac before the Divisional Foi‘eet upratapur Forest, District North Bastar, Kanker (C’i.G} Within a period of two weeks from today. a The petitioner wilt not transfer or alienate the saié vehicles to the third party in any manner during the pendency oft' 16 confiscation proceedings. Mil produce the vehicles in the Divisional Forest Officer as ./"\/’ the tune of R52 Officer, East Bh o The petitioner question before and when required. With the aforesaid o‘aservation and directions, the - petition stands disposed of. 1 Certifled copy as per R