IN TEE HIGHC OURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Petition No. n v41Q 12002 Sundaram Finance Limited. a Company duly incorporated under the relevant Rules of the Company Act, 1956 having its principal business place 21-Pattullos Road. Chennai and interalia amongst other branches, a Branch Office at Devendra Nagar. Raipur. VS. 7 1) state of Chhattisgarh. through its Secretary. Ministry of Forest. Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur. r ./"' ”Vii/2) The Gonservator of Forester Jail Road, Raipur Gircle, Raipur. 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, @ariyaband District Raipur. 4) M/s. Kamal Kirana Stores; Bus-Stand, ‘ariyaband, Raipur. v’/‘ i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Petitioner : wégx fag, Re spondents : ‘ l Q _\ mm mumWWW 4 “ Fa'”E fr Wm m zzgjzaoz. ,Wm w 200 30.9.2004 Shri BPSharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Pane Lawyer for the State/ respondents No. 1 to 3. H6ard. : y'yry The prititiont‘r, which iS. 5‘. Finance Company, has 'prefsntd H this writ petiu'on under Articls 2 26/ Q27 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the ordeedated 15.5.2000 passed by the Respondent N0. 3 and confirmed in appeal by the Respondent No. 2. The relevant factS for diejosal of tine. writ petition ale that one Swaraj Mazda vehicle having registration No. MP—Qg/D-9880 was found carrvmg 24 numb of forest 131oduge namelv BeeJa sleepers 011 2 12 1999 at about 11 4o am near forest cheek post . - Ganaband. A perusal of the 0 der dated 1.5.3.2000 shows that when this vehicle reached to the forest Check-post Garivaband and mtercepted by the Assxstant Bo st Omcei Shn D Ix Saxena 1t was found that kamal Chand G11 ta proprietor of Kamal klrana sitting m the vehicle and the Vehicle was being driven by V endra Singh 24 number ’of‘ Bija sleepers were kept in the truck elow the bags of padd ', therefore the truck was taken to the f rest check post Gariaband and proceeding under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vya‘par Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 Stores, Rudreshwar Sahu we s initiated and vide impugned . e a XLHC~22 0mm“ di. 15.5.2000 the Prescxib and the foreSt produce in quesfio . Aggrieved by the order of oniiscion th6 espondent No.4 pitfcqrcd appeal .which came 29.122000 bv the Appellate Au ofitv and mercaf‘terxhfe rcvision .9 fllti‘d by the Respondant No.4 was also dismissed {fide order datad pctition on the ground fhat tho aid vehicle was ‘fmanccdhy tho petitionor—company and the Rpondent No.4 was thc highor purchaser of the vehiclo theref Without issu'mg ainotice to the petitioner—company, which has s me interest in the vehicla, the Proscn'bed Authoritv was’not enti ed to coniiscate the vehicle. The fact that the vchiclc ' question was financed by the petition€r~company has not bCen isputed by” the. respondants and own ths mgistration certiflcate, copy of which i3 Ammxure P/ 3, shows. that the vahiclg was istared in the name of the Respbndont No.4 but in the co No, 13 “Purchased ul'lder hire Purchasc ‘A'grocmcnt wi ” — it h s bccn spacifically mcntioncd by the: Ragistxation‘ Authon'ty tha the vehicle 1'11 questiou was: purchased under the Hire C11ase Scheme with the M/S Sundram Finance Ltd. The provisions of sub-sect‘on 500) of Section 15 envisaged that ‘Ne order cohiiscating any poperty shall be made unlees the authom‘zed ofiice; issues a notice 1'11 writing to the person from r af R e‘ m g l § _,_-..um XI-HC-22 Whom t11€ propeity i5; seized, alic' appear to the aufhon'zed officer 1 property. It is an admitted position t hat thc vchiclc in'ggiiifcstion was n) and its name was also ate, therefore-r the petitioner 1 the vehicle because finance of olved, therefore; undoubtedly, ctilied Authority ought to have pany before proceeding with the i ‘ to ariy ,other pqrson Who may :0 have same interest in such financed by the petitioner (h m€11tioned in m6 regisiratiqn c hErein has definiteevestEd intereSt the petitioner-company was in ‘ under the said provision the Pre igsued notice to the petitioner—co confiscation proceedings and ad learned Prescribed Authoritv. Leaxned Panel Lawver ar " remained silent for such a long p vi immediate steps when the 'conhsc But, unless the petitioner~comp know about’the coniiscating pr‘ Authority applied Lite mind and p fmm which it 1's evident that the purchase from the petitioner-comp my opinion, Would not have comm confiscation Proceedings in questic the provisions of sub—section (5) (b, In View of What has been di5( is allowed. The c‘ontiscation procet d that the petitioner-company 1iod and it ought to have taken ting proceedings were going on. 1y was informed how it could ceedings’. Had the Prescribed ed the registration certificate ‘vehicle in question was on hire any, the Prescribed Authority, in itted this mistake. Therefore, the 11 gutters from the compliance of‘ of Section 15 of the Act, 1969. :ussed herein above: the petition :dings in question including the s\ / ttediy it was not done by the \ i a ‘ m c e s 0mm" paSSISd in aiipaal and revisbu am liabk to 13:6 quashad ‘amd Q am hereby quashéd. However, it %‘g made clear that the Prescribed ) 1 Authority is not grecluded from proceeding with ihe confiscatian ‘ proceedings from§ the stage 0f issuance of tho notice to rthc ‘3 ‘ petitioner (herein). tow 7% ’ Sd/— L.C.BHADOO JuHLge - Y5. 7,, \ Certified Copy as per RuIES.