Dismissed¶29

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2024WPC/1419/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC, WPC 1419/2011, decided 27.11.2024 (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.): confiscation of vehicle CG. 12-C 0285 and 274 pieces of sawn wood in Forest Crime No. 774/19 upheld; concurrent findings of SDO (Forest), Conservator of Forest and Sessions Judge sustained; plea of delay since seizure on 17.5.2005 and denial of ownership rejected; Indian Forest Act 1927, Chhattisgarh Kashth Chiran Adhiniyam 1984, M.P. Forest Act 1969, M.P. Vanopaj Adhiniyam 2000; writ dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of substance, with no order as to costs. ¶29

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of substance, with no order as to costs.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle along with the forest produce was in accordance with law, the petitioner contending that the seized wood was not related to him and that confiscation proceedings were commenced and concluded after an inordinate delay following the seizure (stated as 17.5.2005). +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The Forest Authorities followed due process of law and the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing; the orders impugned are neither illegal nor perverse, and the contention of arbitrariness/delay fails.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO (Forest), the Appellate Authority (Conservator of Forest) and the Revisional Court concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner, in contravention of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Chhattisgarh Kashth Chiran Adhiniyam, 1984, M.P. Forest Act, 1969, M.P. Vanopaj Adhiniyam, 2000 and M.P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyam), was carrying various sawn woods and his vehicle along with the forest product stood confiscated; this finding of fact based on the material on record does not call for any interference by the High Court.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.12.2010 of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 25/10 confirming the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle (Regn. No. CG. 12-C 0285) along with 274 pieces of sawn wood seized in Forest Crime No. 774/19: HELD, the confiscating authority (Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO (Forest), Dharamjaigarh, order dated 30.09.2008), the Appellate Authority (Conservator of Forest, order dated 27.01.2010) and the Revisional Court had concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner carried sawn wood in contravention of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Chhattisgarh Kashth Chiran Adhiniyam, 1984, M.P. Forest Act, 1969, M.P. Vanopaj Adhiniyam, 2000 and M.P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyam); the Forest Authorities followed due process of law and afforded the petitioner proper opportunity of hearing, and the concurrent finding of fact, being neither illegal nor perverse, did not warrant interference. Petition dismissed; no costs. (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)

2024:CGHC:49198

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1419 of 2011

¶6

1 - Mahavir Prasad Agrawal S/o Lt. Jagat Ram Agrawal, R/o Ambikapur Road, Patthalgaon, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Forest department D. K. S. Bhavan Raipur C.G.

¶10

The Conservator of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur C.G.

¶11

The Prescribed Authority-cum-Sub Divisional OfÏcer Forest Dharamjaygarh Distt.- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶15

27.11.2024

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by Third Additional

¶18

¶19

Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 25/10 afÏrming the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by Appellate Authority-Cum-Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle (Annexure P-3) whereby Appellate Authority-Cum-Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle has upheld the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum- Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Forest), Dharamjaigarh, by which, Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Forest), Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh has passed the confiscation order with regard to vehicle alongwith forest product.

¶20

Facts of the case are that the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. CG. 12-C 0285 was involved in forest offence carrying 274 pieces of Sawn wood without any valid & effective permit. In pursuance thereof, Forest Crime No. 774/19 was registered against the petitioner and seized the said vehicle alongwith forest wood logs. After following due process of law, proceedings were drawn against the petitioner and show cause notice has also been issued to the petitioner, who was registered owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, Prescribed OfÏcer-cum-Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Forest), Sub Division, Dharamjaigarh initiated confiscation proceedings and directed confiscation of the vehicle along with 274 pieces of the Forest Produce. Against which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Conservator of Forest, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2010 upholding the order passed by SDO (Forest) Sub Division, Dharamjaigarh. Against which, the petitioner again preferred criminal revision before 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.12.2010 upholding the order passed by the SDO (Forest) as well as Appellate Authority i.e. the Conservator of Forest.

¶21

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by Revisional Authority, instant writ petition has been preferred questioning the same.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of respondents to seize the vehicle and the confiscation proceeding against the petitioner is arbitrary and bad in law. He submits that seized wood is not related to the petitioner, as neither he was present at the place of incident nor he gave consent to the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was seized on 17.5.2005 and after an inordinate delay, the proceedings has been commenced and after a huge delay, the confiscation order has been passed, which is violative of provisions contained in Forest Act, therefore, it is prayed that impugned order may be quashed while holding that confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle is not in accordance with law, and the vehicle of the petitioner may be directed to be given back to him.

¶24

Per contra, counsel for the State while opposing the submission made by counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where the petitioner's vehicle has involved in forest offence carrying forest produce i.e. Sawn wood 274 pieces without any valid authority / permit. He submits that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner during confiscation proceedings and after following due process of law, the impugned orders have been passed, as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned warranting interference of this Court in the instant petition.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that since all the aforesaid authorities i.e. Prescribed Authority-cum-SDO (Forest), Appellate Authority i.e. the Conservator of Forest and Revisional Court have concurrently recorded a concurrent finding against the petitioner holding that petitioner in contravention

¶27

¶28

of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Chhattisgarh Kashth Chiran Adhiniyam, 1984 , M.P. Forest Act, 1969, M.P. Vanopaj Adhiniyam, 2000 and M.P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyam) was carrying various Sawn Woods and, therefore, his vehicle alongwith Forest Product was confiscated. The Forest Authorities have followed due process of law, the petitioner was given proper opportunity of hearing which is neither illegal nor perverse. The said finding is a finding of facts based on material available on record, which does not call for any interference in the instant appeal warranting interference of this Court.

¶29

As a fallout & consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶32

amita

¶33

Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2024.12.20 09:49:34 +0530

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Prasad Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premkumar Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arti Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Chopde Vs State of Chhattisgarh