Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3611 of 2021
Rahul Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Hazaribagh
3. The Divisional Forest Officer, West Division Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, A.C. to G.P.-III
Order No. 03 Dated: 28.10.2021
At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect, as
pointed out by the office, is ignored.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon
the respondent no. 2- the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority,
Hazaribagh to expeditiously dispose of Appeal No. 18 of 2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's vehicle
(truck) bearing registration no. JH-02AH-2496 was confiscated vide order
dated 16.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3- the Authorised Officer-
cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh West Forest Division in
Confiscation Case No. 1 (A)/ 2019 - G. (F) Case No. 31 of 2019 on the
allegation that the said vehicle was involved in commission of forest
offence under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Being
aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being
Confiscation Appeal No. 14 of 2019 in the court of the respondent no. 2
who remanded the matter to the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the
respondent no. 3 again passed the order dated 21.10.2020 maintaining its
earlier order dated 16.08.2019 with modification that the word "coal"
mentioned in last line of earlier order would be replaced with
"Carbonaceous shell" and the last part of earlier order was modified to be
read as "Hence under the Powers conferred under Sec. 52(3) of Indian
Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment 1989) the aforesaid vehicle is
confiscated along with carbonaceous shell loaded over it." It is further
submitted that the petitioner again preferred appeal before the respondent
no. 2 on 06.11.2020 against the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the
respondent no. 3 which was registered as Confiscation Appeal No. 18 of
2020, hearing of which was concluded in the month March, 2021 and the
order/judgment was to be pronounced by the respondent no. 2 thereafter.
The petitioner repeatedly visited the court of the respondent no. 2,
however the said appeal has not yet been disposed of, which has
compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.
4. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, learned A.C. to G.P.-III appearing on behalf of
the respondents, submits that the order/judgment might not have been
passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 18 of 2020 by the respondent no. 2
owing to the fact that after conclusion of hearing, the country faced the
second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the said appeal would be
disposed of expeditiously by the respondent no. 2.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Appeal No. 18
of 2020 was finally heard by the respondent no. 2 in the month of March,
2021 and thereafter appropriate order/judgment was to be pronounced as
well as considering that several months have passed since March, 2021,
the respondent no. 2 is directed to fix the said appeal for fresh argument
on behalf of the parties after issuance of notices to them and thereafter to
dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within two months from
the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
