IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8187 of 2009 DEVANAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE PRABHU MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAKHINGAON, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA……………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER – CUM - SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, GAYA 4. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER – CUM - DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, GAYA 5. THE RANGE OFFICER OF FOREST, FLYING SQUAD, GAYA……………………………RESPONDENTS ---------- For the petitioner: Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. Amanullah, S.C. No.17 *** 4. 13.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s tractor and trailor was seized with two trees of Seesam and one tree of Gamhar by the Forest Oofficer on the ground that transit permit was not produced by him. A confiscation proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter confiscation order was passed and the same was also affirmed in appeal and revision. Petitioner moved this Court through C.W.J.C. No. 2972 OF 2006 challenging the three orders. The said writ application was heard on 05.02.2009 and this Court did not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the - 2 - petitioner to set aside three orders. However, this Court found substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner under Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act (in short, “the Act”) was not considered by the Forest Officer before passing the order of confiscation. Therefore, while disposing of the writ application, the Court directed the Forest Officer to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders. By the order impugned herein, as contained in Anenxure-1, the said application has been rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division. After noticing the facts of the case and the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, the Divisional Forest Officer has held that the application of the petitioner under Section 68 of the Act has already been rejected before initiation of the confiscation proceeding. When the case was heard on the last date, the question fell for consideration as to whether it was mandatory on the part of the Forest Officer to entertain an application filed under Section 68 of the Act and release the vehicle and seized goods on payment of compensation, as may be fixed by him and whether reasons assigned by him while rejecting the - 3 - application of the petitioner were justified. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 in support of the impugned order. However, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was found indulging into illegal trade of forest goods. The order shows that only on the basis of seizure of tractor and trailor of the petitioner and three logs of the trees, as mentioned above, it has been presumed that petitioner was indulging into illegal trade of forest goods. The defence of the petitioner is that three logs of tree were loaded on the tractor without his knowledge, may be, by his driver, who had felled the trees from his own land and was transporting the same for his own use. Considering the facts and circumstances and without going into the legality of the orders of the Divisional Forest Officer in rejecting the application under Section 68 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the tractor and trailor of the petitioner should be released in his favour in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, this Court directs the respondents to pass an order of release of the tractor and trailor of the petitioner in terms of - 4 - Section 68 of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In exercise of power under Section 68 of the Act, the respondent shall fix a reasonable compensation and intimate the petitioner upon which he shall deposit the same before taking delivery of the tractor and trailor. The compensation should be reasonable and not exorbitant and prohibitory and strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, if any. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)