Petitioner sought to set aside a confiscation order and release a truck and coal. The court dismissed the petition as the vehicle had already been auctioned and the petitioner had not challenged the auction process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1640 of 2012
Sanjay Yadav, Son of Sri Radhey Yadav, Resident of Jarangdih, P.O. – Jarangdih, P.S. – Bokaro Thermal, District - Bokaro
… … Petitioner
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C. to G.P VI
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“That the instant writ application is setting aside the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned Forest Secretary – cum – Addl. Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Department, Ranchi Jharkhand in Confiscation Revision Case No.2/Forest Case (C). No.52/2009 whereby & whereunder the learned Revisional Court has been pleased to dismiss the revision filed by the petitioner.
And
For a further direction to the respondents to forthwith release the Truck bearing No. JH 09C – 4645 and the Steam Coal loaded about 16 tones in favour of the petitioner, who is the real owner of the Truck & the coal in question.”
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case mentioning that the vehicle involved in the present case, has already been auctioned sold after advertisement on 01.09.2012 and therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the fact that the writ petition was pending, they have auctioned sold the vehicle and their action is not in accordance with law and otherwise also, the auction has not taken place as per the procedure prescribed under law. So far as merit of the case is concerned, no argument as such has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of illegality of the impugned order.
5. This court is of the considered view that merely because this writ petition was pending, the action taken by the respondents to auction the vehicle cannot be said to be illegal. Neither any interim order was ever passed by this court in favour of the petitioner.
2
6. Moreover, the fact remains that at any stage the petitioner did not take steps challenging the auction notice nor the auction of the vehicle is under challenge in the present proceedings. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner regarding challenging of the auction, cannot be entertained in this writ petition.
7. Considering the fact that vehicle has already been auctioned sold, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
Sanjay Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
The Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
