IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1060 of 2010 SURESH PASWAN Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNGER FOREST DIVISION, MUNGER 3. FORESTER, SHAMPUR KHARAGPUR, MUNGER. ----------- 2 27.10.2010. The petitioner prays for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to release his Tractor (Mahindra) bearing Registration no. BR 08B 5490 with Trailer no. BR 08G 1066 which was seized by Forester of Shampur area within Munger District on 5.2.2009, when tractor was carrying Metal on hire basis with a valid permit/challan. The petitioner submits that he was carrying metal on behalf of persons who were granted appropriate challan for lifting the metal on valid challan. A copy of challan dated 5.2.1999 has been annexed as annexure 1. He further submits that confiscation proceeding bearing Case no. 7 of 2009 was initiated in the month of February, 2009. The petitioner asserts that confiscation proceeding has not yet been decided. He further submits that he earns livelihood by letting his vehicle on hire. He could not have any knowledge whether person hiring the vehicle was excavating the metal from proper lease hold area or not. He submits that he is required to pay tax of the vehicle and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the same idle. In case the vehicle is kept idle, it is bound to lose its value and ultimately if the confiscation proceeding succeeds and the vehicle is ultimately sold it could hardly secure any worth price, if it becomes junked. 2 Counsel for the State seeks time to seek instruction and to file counter affidavit. It appears that petitioner is owner of the vehicle and he is neither the lease holder nor the person who got the challan for lifting of metals. The confiscation proceeding ought to have been disposed of expeditiously, otherwise, the vehicle seized would lose its value and the State will ultimately get very poor price, if confiscation proceeding succeeds. This Court, in case of Baliram yadav Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2002(1) PLJR 615 emphasized need of expeditious disposal of confiscation proceeding. This Court held that if the authority concerned is not able to dispose of the confiscation proceeding expeditiously, he may release the vehicle on furnishing adequate surety pending disposal of the proceeding. In the instant case, the confiscation proceeding has continued for more than 1 year and 8 months. In the circumstances, this Court directs that if the confiscation proceeding is not already disposed of till today, vehicle and trailer as mentioned above would be released in favour of the petitioner on furnishing adequate surety along with a bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/-. With the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition is allowed. In case the vehicle is ultimately confiscated in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner would surrender the vehicle. Shashi. ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)