Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5150 of 2023
-----
Amit Kumar, S/o Dr. Kalap Nath Pandey .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, At Doranda, Ranchi
3.Revisional Authority-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest,
Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi
4.Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag
5.Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, West Forest Division,
Hazaribag ... Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate.
Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate
Mr. Niraj Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
.........
03 /15.01.2024: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
2. This is classic example, how the petitioner has been harassed by
the State officials.
3. The vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.JH-02R-
9666 was seized on 11.05.2015 and a Confiscation proceeding under
Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act was initiated being Confiscation
Case No.16 of 2015. On 26.08.2015 an order was passed in Confiscation
Case No.16 of 2015 by the Authorized Officer, by virtue of which the
truck was confiscated. Against the said order of confiscation, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner,
Hazaribag, which was registered as Confiscation Appeal No.07 of 2015
and the appeal also stood dismissed on 11.04.2017. Thereafter
petitioner preferred a statutory revision being Revisional Case No.77
of 2017 before the Revisional Authority. The said application was also
dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by
these orders of confiscation, approached this Hon'ble Court by filing
an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The same was
numbered as W.P.(C) No.4225 of 2018. Vide order dated 16.04.2019, a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court, allowed the writ petition. The learned
Single Judge held that the Authorized Officer has not passed the order
after properly appreciating the document. Learned Judge further held
that the findings are perverse, thus, interfered with the order passed
by the Authorized Officer, Appellate Authority and the Revisional
Authority. The learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, thereafter,
quashed the order dated 26.08.2015 (original order), 11.04.2017
(appellate order) and 12.06.2018 (revisional order) and allowed the
writ petition.
It is necessary to quote paragraph 15 of the said judgment, herein
below:-
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case as per the reason recorded therein
and basing upon the judgments referred above, according to the considered view
of this Court the finding recorded by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional
Forest Officer has not been passed by properly appreciating the documents
pertaining to the challans of the coal and its genuineness having been obtained
by the authorities of the Forest Officer from the CCL Piperwar, it can be said to
be a perverse finding and it is a perverse finding, therefore, the order passed by
the Forest Officer needs interference by this Court in exercise of power of judicial
review as also the appellate and the revisional authority has not appreciated this
aspect of the matter in exercise of power of appeal or the revision rather they
have reiterated the finding in their orders as has been recorded by the Authorized
Officer which does reflect that they have passed the order mechanically and
without applying the quasi judicial mind, in view thereof and for the reason
recorded therein, the orders dated 26.08.2015, 11.04.2017 and 12.06.2018 are
not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly quashed.
4. The aforesaid judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court was challenged by the State in LPA No.518 of 2019. The Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and dismissed the LPA filed by the State on 24.02.2022.
Against the said order the State preferred a Civil Review being Civil
Review No.34 of 2022. The said Civil Review was also dismissed on
23.11.2023. However, till date the State has not approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. They also did not release the vehicle.
5. When this matter was listed in the last week, I directed the State
to seek instruction. They have only instructed their lawyer that the
State are contemplating to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court
challenging the order passed in the LPA and Review application.
6. This submissions clearly suggest that they have not filed any
application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and they are also not in
a mood to release the vehicle, when admittedly there is no proceeding
pending against the vehicle and the order of confiscation has already
been set aside. Be it noted that the criminal case, which was instituted
being G.(F) Case No.223 of 2015 (T.R. No.486 of 2022) ended in
acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 31.08.2022.
7. Thus, from the aforesaid facts the high handedness of the State
is writ large. Once the confiscation proceeding was quashed by this
Court and order of this Court has not been set aside, the vehicle should
have been released in favour of the petitioner. The respondents-State
not only lost in the writ application, but LPA was dismissed and Civil
Review was also dismissed. Inspite of dismissal of these applications,
they are holding over the vehicle and are not releasing the same in
favour of the petitioner. This action of the Authorities is nothing, but
an absolute abuse of power.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is allowed.
9. A direction is given to the DFO, Hazaribagh respondent No.5 to
release the vehicle No.JH-02R-9666 in favour of the petitioner, who is
admittedly the registered owner, within a week from date of receipt of
copy of this order. Further a cost of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) to
be paid to the petitioner by the State.
10. The Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest and
Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand will initiate an inquiry and
identify the person on whose instance the vehicle was not released in
favour of the owner, inspite of fact that the writ application, LPA and
the Civil Review was dismissed. The amount of cost should be
deducted from his salary.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand and the Accountant General so that they
will ensure that the money is recovered from salary of the erring
officer.
11. So far as the second prayer i.e. the compensation is concerned,
the same involves a disputed question of fact. The amount of loss
needs to be quantified, for which, the petitioner should approach the
Civil Court, as determination of the same needs leading of evidence.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
