Paee No.2 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P.(C)NO. ^i-^Q /II / PETITIONER 72... ^^^-:. ' vs^.-'^n ^ ^r:.^-]^1 RESPONDENTS Admon Kujur S/o Paulus Kujur Age- 30 Years R/o Village- Kaya Tah. & P.S. Gharghoda Distt.- Raigarh C.G VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh Through -The Secretary , Forest department D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur C.G. The Prescribed Authority -cum- Sub Divisional Officer Forest Dharamjaygarh Distt- Raigarh, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /2270F THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA "-•^;~;, jo A ^s^>-^.»- ^i?'1- .,.;• ii-:cis 223/227 ofthe ConstHut'o" of " Hon'bie Shri Sstish K. Aanlhot", J. ^iQSQH; ~ ^snn ?°t3; i'\Us:i3i ^UplS. r-sCivocsTS <or ins DsTiT;onsr. Shri Shashank Thsfor, Psne! Lawverforthe State. ?**s ?**^ ?"lt ^^ / rr'-\ •^•^i 3^ ^ '^ UKUEK(UKAL) (Passeci on Ihis 17"' day of October, 2011) Challenge in ihis petition ;s tc the ordsr dated 27"' Ssp'ember, 2011 'Annexure °-1'i, passed bv the Competent Authorilv cum Sub Divisionai f'^ss°l..r-eir I ^>^h ^,"" •.At^.^'^s"^^ -"<= ^^^:^z-3, : .^ 'Tt-^.n-^-'r ^.'ir'-n^ K^r!;d^";rt ^^/s" --/;!HUs3;- L.tsiiUs'uiR, vy'ti^r^ijv. UsSs yyHsU^ ;.'^. ; Jal/lUi ^ysK;;!1^ i'yU.'^'^ i ^i/U -^C'-^-^ SSiZSQ On SCCOuHt. Of ItS ;nvo;v@nisnt In thB &ff:6r;c9, wss rQ;e£S6d on supurdanama on ''urfTsranc! a Bank Guarantee lo the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs. •' ns 7Qds, ^n DnsT. ss proi&oisu DV ins Dsi^ionsr srs' 'ins^ Tn'B psiiuon^r nss conflsosSon asproached ihe Jud'cis! IVagistrate First Class. The appiicafion was rejeoted on 07 Iway, 2011. Thereafta'', Ihe petiiione!" movsd the i'evjsicna' Coi'ri and ihe rsvlsio" was aiso rejected o" 29 June, 2C11. Theressslnst, a crlmina' 'evision was orefsrred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be'o'-s this Hon'bis Court being Cr.M.P.No.336/2011, which was c!isoosed of by cnjer daled "i2';' September, 2011, by grarsling uberiy so ths appiicant to FHQVS 30QrQDFi£tsSDQ losilon sQr Qfsnt ot iHtsrlm custodv of t-HS vshlcis t^stors ths confiscatina authoritv. On such aaplication. 't wss further dlrected 'that Ihe confiscatina authoritv shsii declde the ssET}e wl'thin a Qsrlod of 15 davs, i.££fr1SOCOUnS' •w;SlJiS=l;JiJt3i , aooearinc ibr the oetiiioner submiis ihai ihe order dated 27 bad, as if ihe Soized vehide was reiessed on ns same shousd have been done not on fumishing the Sank on TumishJRg ciher securiw in olacs of Ba"l< Guaranlee. Agsinsi the order daied 27 Septeniber, 2Q11, wnich is impugned in this peti'i'o" siso, ttie pstitionsr preferred sn appi'calion undsr Section 482 of Cr.P.C. be'ore this Coun. beina Cr.WI.P.No.661;2Q^1. This Court, i-.av'nu '^, ..fy i^'. i;SiUS3 Q\ ipects of the matter, held Ihat a peliiion under Seclio" 482 of Cr.P.C. wouid not be maintainable aaainst Ihe order passed bv a corifiscatirig aii'hority. Thus, ihs peiiiion was dismissed on 12"' Ociober, 2011 fAnnexure P-3). Thereafter, withoul taking recourss to other statuton? forum, T^-"^ 7^^T;TS'?r3^<-y-^^-^T- •^•^-i^^. ?^.-r?.'3ti'l'*^\^^-^T- *^--Tn r-\T^\^.^^^Vi^---^ 4^ ^i'iUii ii.^V ?-;CT csVcsJs^^Jifc; lU l;;c;' p^ljlsUiiSi , IH^ pSUUUH'yi f^s'ia pi ^iSFi'SU if:S instsnl writ "elilio" seekina writ/order'direction to auash the same order dated 27"' Sepismber, 2011, OR ihe ground ihai Ihe vehicie was reieased on sub'nissi"" of Bank Guaraniee for suuurdanams, not on the basis of olher ^scUU^ Ui^^ It ^s w'sl! ssttisd thot oncs ths Dstillons'r hss sDcroach^d this Court undsr Section dS2 of Cr.P.C. a"d She case was dismissed, a fresh writ petitlon ror The sams relief sga'nst the saTie smauaned order, is noi mainlainabSe, when olher aStemative statutorv foruTis are avai!ab!e to ihe petitiorier under Ihe prov!S!ons oi law. Aocordinaiv, the writ petifion is dismissed, as not mainiainabie. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOM Judge