Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prahlad Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3043 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
PRAHLAD SINGH S/O SHRI RAMDAYAL, AGED ABOUT
47 YEARS, VILL. TULKA TEH. GOHARGANJ, DISTT.
RAISEN. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P. MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH FOREST
DEPTT. TH. THE RANGE OFFICER FOREST SUB
FOREST DIVISION, CHILWAHA, TEH.
GOHARGANJ, RAISEN. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER & SUB DIVISIONAL
O F F I C E R HEADQUARTER SULTANPUR TAH.
GOHARGANJ DISTT. RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BHOPAL
CIRCLE DISTT. BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.V.S. RAO - PANEL LAWYER )
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of the orders
dated 18-01-2010, 12-11-2008 and 01-03-2008 which are contained in
Annexure-P/1, Annexure-P/4 and Annexure-P/2 respectively, whereby the
vehicle (tractor trolley) of the petitioner has been confiscated by the
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the
owner of the tractor trolley bearing registration No.MP-38B-2106 which was
seized by the forest authorities on the ground that 55 logs of "Sagoun" were
being transported without there being any documents regarding transportation
of the same. The said seizure was ultimately ensued in passing of the order of
confiscation dated 01-03-2008. The order of confiscation was assailed by filing
an appeal which was dismissed. Later on, revision preferred by the petitioner
also faced dismissal vide order dated 18-01-2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
on the allegation of transportation of 55 logs "Sagoun", proceedings were
initiated by the respondents. On the date of the alleged incident, the tractor was
being driven by Jamuna Prasad. During the proceedings before the Prescribed
Authority the petitioner took recourse to the stand that he was not aware about
the loading of the "Sagoun" woods in the tractor trolley by the driver Jamuna
Prasad, therefore, the order of confiscation should not have been passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner
who is the owner of the tractor trolley in question, was not aware about the said
transportation and there is failure on the part of the respondents to establish
that the said transportation was within the knowledge of the present petitioner.
It is contended by the learned counsel that until and unless it is proved by the
prosecution that transportation was within the knowledge of the owner, the
vehicle could not have been seized. To substantiate his submission the learned
counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Sarjoo
Prasad s/o Mullu Choudhary vs. State of M.P., 2006(2) MPLJ 65 and
Prakash Rai vs. State of M.P. and two others, 2006(4) MPHT 295.
5. Learned counsel for the State has supported the orders passed by the
respondents, which are impugned in the present petition while submitting that
adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and it was within
the knowledge of the petitioner that the "Sagoun" woods were being illicitly
transported by the tractor trolley in question. Even the Prescribed Authority in
para 3 of the judgment has elaborately recorded the finding in this regard.
Learned counsel contends that order of confiscation has not been disturbed by
the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority has also dismissed the
revision preferred the petitioner. Thus, submits that no interference is warranted
in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal.
6. No any other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it is
undisputed that the present petitioner is the registered owner of the tractor
trolley bearing registration No.MP-38B-2106. On the date of incident it was
being plied by one Jamuna Prasad, who in his statement has clearly stated that
he was transporting food-grains by the said tractor trolley since long time, and
even on the date of the incident he had taken the tractor trolley without
informing the present petitioner. He has further stated that the said tractor
trolley was being driven by him since last 6-7 years.
8. It is evident from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority that
there was violation on the part of the Authority to establish that on the date of
the incident, the tractor trolley in question was being utilised for the purposes of
transportation of woods with the consent and knowledge of the present
petitioner. It was incumbent upon the Authority to demonstrate that the entire
transportation was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, who is the
registered owner of the tractor-trolley. Therefore, in view of the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Prakash Rai (supra), the impugned orders are
unsustainable.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders, so far as it relates to the
tractor-trolley bearing registration No.MP-38B-2106, are set aside. It is directed
that the seized vehicle shall be handed over to the petitioner on Supurdginama,
subject to producing the original registration certificate and further on satisfying
the following terms and conditions :-
(i) That, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) for the aforesaid vehicle, with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority on an undertaking to
produce the said vehicle before the said Authority as and when required.
(ii) That, the applicant shall get the vehicle photographed showing the
registration number as well as the chassis number. Such photographs shall be
taken in the presence of the responsible officer, who will be deputed by the
Prescribed Authority and to be kept in the file of the case.
(iii) That, the personal bond of the applicant as well as surety shall carry
t h e photographs of both and the bond of surety shall further carry the
photograph of person identifying him before the Prescribed Authority which
would be with full residential proof of the surety and the person identifying him.
(iv) The applicant shall undertake not to transfer the ownership of the
vehicle and not to lease it to any one and not to alienate or create any third
party interest and not to make or allow any changes in it to be made so as to
make identifiable.
(v) The applicant will not allow the vehicle to be used for any anti-social
activities. Further, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle in question
positively, if the same requires to be produced by the respondents/authority.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of in the
above terms. Let a copy this order be forwarded to the authority concerned for
necessary compliance.
C.c. as per rules.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac
