^..^ ^ulr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON CC) No. 6576 of2008 PETmQNER RESPONDENTS Vimal Trading Company, Bastar Road Dhamtari- Tht'ou^i: its Sole proprietor Kishore Jaiswani 8/0 Shri Gopichand Jaiswani, aged about 43 years, R/o Risaipara, Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary Departmeiit of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan- Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Conser/ator of Forest, Raipur Circle, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Presiding Officer, Sub Forest Division, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) WSH PETmON L1NDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF TEIE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Prescnt: Smt. Anju Ahuja, Advocate forthe petitioner. Sliri Alok Bakshi, Govenmient Advocate for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 25th day of November, 2008) 1. The petitioner- being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2008 (Anne^mre P/l) passed by the Range Officer, Dhamtari, has filed tliis petition whereby the petltioner has been directed to hand over the vehicle i.e. the Tmck bearing number CPT - 2612, involved m the alleged offence. 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a writ petition being No. 2053/2001, during pendency of confiscation proceeding before the Sub Divisional OfFicer (Forest) for release of the above-stated Tmck on supurdnama. This Court, by order dated 11.12.2001 passed in WP. No. 2053/2001, directed the respondents to releaso the said vehicle on supurdnama to the writ petitioner on fumishing bond of Rs. 1,50.000/- and bank guarantee of Rs. 20.000/-. According to Smt. Ahuja, the vehicle was released after decision offhe confiscation proceedings on 24.02.2002. 3. A modification was sought with regard to the order dated 11.12.2001 asto whetlier this order was by way of interim arrangement or it was final, in M.C.C. No. 135/2003. The petition came up before the leamed Division Bench. The leamed Division Bench by order dated 15th September, 2008, made it clear as under: c^, 5. 6. 7. -2- "4. A bare reading of the above quoted order dated 11.12.2001 makes it clear that it was an interini an-angement during fhe pendency of the coiifiscation proceedings." On pemsal of the orders dated 11.12.2001 as well as order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the leamed Division Bench, it is clear that the relief was granted for handing over the vehicle on supurdnama durmg pendency of the coii&scation proceedings before the S.D.O (Forest). Otoce the conflscation proceeding has come to an end and final order has been passed, the order dated 11.12.2001 and thereafter clariflcation by order dated 15 September, 2008 can not contiiiue. If the petitioner has any grlevance against the confiscationorderdated 08.11.2008, passed m confiscation proceedings- the petitioner may take recourse to appellate fomm as provided under the provisions oflaw. Smt. Ahuja further submits that an appeal is pending before the Conservator ofForest againstthe order ofconfiscation. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is devoid ofmerit. Tlius, it deserves to be and is dismissed in limine. If the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner may very well take recourse to statutory provisions as provided under fhe law, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amu