IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2972 of 2006 ***** Devanand Prasad, Pita Swa. Prabhu Mahto, Gram-Dakhingaon, Thana-Wajirganj, Zila-Gaya. …. …. Yachikakarta Versus 1. Bihar Rajya. 2. Ayukta Evam Sachiv, Paryavaran Evam Van Vibhag, Bihar, Patna. 3. Zila Padadhikari-sah-Samaharta, Gaya. 4. Pradhikrit Padadhikari, Gaya Van Pramandal, Gaya. 5. Vano Ke Kshetra Padadhikari, Uran Dasta, Gaya. …. …. Uttarwadi ----------- 8. 5.2.2009. Petitioner claims himself to be a legal owner of tractor No. BR-6439 and Trailer No.BR-2A-6440, which has been seized by the authorized authorities under the purported exercise of power under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the seizure list dated 11.10.2001 (Annexure-1), the confiscation Order dated 14.9.2002 (Annexure-5), appeal order dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure-6) as well as revisional order dated 22.5.2004/25.5.2004 (Annexure-7) to the writ application. Petitioner’s case is that after taking bank loan to earn livelihood, petitioner had bought the tractor and trailer in question. The said tractor and trailer came to be seized on 11.10.2001 from the premises of a saw mill, as would be evident from Annexure-1. The seizure was on the ground that no proper transit permission and authentication with regard to certain sesame logs was in possession of the driver at the time of seizure. Petitioner submits that the tractor of the petitioner was taken on hire and after obtaining due permission of the Anchal Adhikari of Sirdala two sesame trees and one gamhar tree was cut down from the plot no.203 of Khata No.8 of village-Jamunagai in the police station of Sirdala. The - 2 - tree in question was standing in the Khatihani land of one Sahabuddin Ansari and he had taken permission in terms of Annexure-3 vide memo no.18 dated 7.10.2001 but ignoring all these the forest officials effected seizure. As would be evident from the narration in the writ application concurrent findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioner and the seizure effected in terms of the confiscation orders has been affirmed right up to the revisional authority. Though serious efforts have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to challenge all the orders in question but the Court is not satisfied or impressed by such submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Forest (State Amendment) Act there is provision for compounding/compromising the offence. This is a substantive provision provided under the Act and respondent no.4, the authorized officer of Gaya Van Pramandal, was duty bound to consider the application of the petitioner in this regard. If the respondent concerned has failed to do so then by his action he has denied the benefit of a legal provision envisaged by the legislators. The Court is willing to consider this aspect of the matter. There is evidence on record that the petitioner had filed an application under the provisions of Section 68 of the State amendment to the Indian Forest Act. If an application is filed then the same cannot be ignored. An order ought to have been passed either accepting or rejecting the same. Since the same has not been done in the present case, the Court is inclined - 3 - to direct respondent no.4 to consider the request of the petitioner for compounding and thereafter pass appropriate order in this regard. The writ application is allowed to the above extent. Since it is an old matter the petitioner will file a fresh application for compounding under Section 68 of the Indian Forest (State Amendment) Act and respondent no.4, the competent authority would thereafter pass an appropriate order. It is hoped and expected that an order of the kind would be passed within three months of the filing of an application under Section 68. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)