‘ tunslj CQURTpF gUDmATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ W.P. NO.827 OF 2005 PETiTlONER Mahavir Prasad Agrawal, S/o. Shri Jagatram Agrawal, Aged 46 years, R/o. Village Patthalgaon, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District - Jashpur-Nagar (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Searetary, Forest Department, D.K‘S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Forest Range Officer, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. — Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Arjun Lai Agrawai, Aged about 34 years, Rio. Laiiunga, Tahsii Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (CG). 4. Authorized Competent Officer & Sub- Divisionai Officer (Forest) Dharamjaigarh Sub—Division, District- Raigarh (CG). Present: Shri P. Diwakar, iearned senior counsel with Shri PR. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, iearned G.A. for the State and its Authorities. ORAL ORDER gPassed en 26‘“ July, zoos) The petitioner’s motor vehicle, a truck, bearing Registration No.CG-14A/0211 (TATA Truck, Model 2002) was seized on the intervening night of 31.12.2004 and 01.01.2005 on the alleged ground that the said truck was found carrying contraband forest produce in violation of the provisions of the lndian Forest Act. The conhscation proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. .v‘ (2) When the matter stood thus, the petitioner moved an application before the Authorized Competent Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Dharamjaigarh Sub-Division. District Raigarh, the 4‘“ respondent herein, for interim custody of the truck pending disposal of the proceedings That application was rejected by the 4 respondent dated 16 02 2005 Vide Annexure-P/Q. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order of the 4m respondent has preferred this writ petition. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties Shri P Diwakar learned senror counsel for the petitioner on Instruction would submrt that there rs absolutely no progress in the canfscatron proceedings initiated by the 4 respondent so far. He would submit that the subject motor vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on hire-purchases basis and he had already incurred heavy loss due to seizure and therefore. the Court be pleased to release the subject motor vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner pending disposal of the proceedings. While opposing the prayer, learned Govt. Advocate would submit that since the petitioner is guilty of committing forest offence, it is not safe to release the subject motor vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner. He would submit, it is more so, having regard to the provisions of Section 52-C of lndian Forest Act. 'ag«ee H (4) When a-valuable property of the petitioner has been seized on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence thereby depriving him from using the motor vehicle and earning his iivelihood, it is expected of a statutory authority like the 4t“ respondent to initiate and Conclude confiscation proceedings with diligence and promptitude. A statutory authority cannot seize a motor vehicle and x3 a‘a :A *:?* orders. There is absolutely no satisfactory explanation from the 4‘“ respoi‘ldent or any other responsible State Authorities why the 4‘“ respondent, the statutory authority, did not conclude the connscation proceedings initiated so far. The 4"“ respondent cannot take his own sweet time to conclude the confiscation proceedings at the peril of the interest of the petitioner. ln that view of the matter, l think that the ends of justice would be met by releasing the subject motor vehicle to the interim custody of the petitioner, however, subject to certain conditions to safeguard the public interest. V (5) ln the result, l dispose of this writ petition directing the 4‘“ respondent to release the subject motor vehicle bearing Registration et" wt