HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT LASPUR 4W WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1052/2011 PETITIONERS: 1. State of Chhattisgrh, Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). (Petitioner No1 1 was not a party before the learned Upper Session Judge' (F.T.C.) Bhanupratappur, North Bastar, Kanker, but has been impleaded as Petitioner No. 1 herein as it is necessary to implead the State Govt. through the Secretary of concerned Department). The Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, District Kanker (C.G.). 3. The Authorized Officer and Sub Forest Divisional Officer, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). s RESPONDENT: Versus l. ‘ Santosh Nishad, S/o Late Ramkrishna Nishad, Age about 30 years, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Sipkona, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). The Presiding Officer, District Court, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.Gi). V” WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presentz- Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/petitioners. Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2. ORAL— ORDER - (Passed on 27/07/201 1) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 22/10/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in crimnal i revision No. 6/10 reversing the order passed by competent authority and appellate authority for confiscation of the vehicle under Forest Act. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/petitioners and Shri N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate for the respondent No. l are heard. Order impugned perused. BI Order impugned does not reveal that present respondent No. 1 has taken the ground that aforesaid forest offence has been committed without his knowledge and after due diligence, he was not in position to knew the aforesaid facts for commission of forest offence by his vehicle. Court below has reversed the order on the ground that competent authority has not examined one D.S. Negiya, Forester. In these circumstances, proper course would be to remand the case for providing opportunity to both the parties instead of reversing the order. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby quashed. Case is remanded back to the Competent.Authority under Forest Act, Kanker authorized for confiscation and Competent Authority after providing an opportunity of taking proper defence examine the witness D.S. Negiya and decide the case afresh. Parties are directed to present before the Competent Authority under Forest Act, Kanker for further progress of the case on 16/8/201 1. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge '\/