Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 181 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ravindra Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 January, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(C) No. 3030 of 2023
                                               -----
              Ravindra Kumar                                    ...... . Petitioner(s)
                                               Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
           3. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Ramgarh Forest
              Division, Ramgarh.                                 ..... Respondent(s)
                                               -----
              CORAM        :    SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shahabuddin, SC-VII Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, AC to SC-VII .........

4/09.01.2024: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice as well as entire proceedings of Confiscation Case No. 149 of 2020. From the record, it is apparent that only the notice has been issued to the petitioner. No final decision has yet been taken.

2. The petitioner has taken a plea that the vehicle was not seized from the forest area nor the material, which was loaded can be said to be forest produce. The petitioner, in support of his submission, also relies upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in WPC No. 552 of 2021 and its analogous cases.

3. The proceeding, so far as this petitioner is concerned, just has been initiated after issuance of notice. The ground, which the petitioner has taken needs to be adjudicated only after leading of evidence. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the question as to whether the vehicle was loaded with forest produce or not. From where the vehicle was seized is also a question of fact that has also to be adjudicated in Confiscation proceeding.

4. So far as judgment cited by the petitioner is concerned, I find that the fact of this case is different as some of the vehicles seized in that case were empty. Whether the material was mined from the forest area or not, is also a matter of evidence.

5. At the very initial stage, the notice cannot be quashed. It is for the petitioner to take all points before the Authorized Officer, who has issued notice, who will consider the submission of the petitioner and after verifying the record will pass appropriate order.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will file his show cause reply annexing all the documents. He further submits that the petitioner will co-operate in the proceeding. He also prays that time frame may be fixed for disposal of the case also.

7. Considering the fact that the confiscated material is motor vehicle, I direct the authority to disposed of the Confiscation Case No. 149/2020 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which the petitioner will produce.

8. Be it mentioned that I am not entering into the merit of this case.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)