Dismissed

Ajit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Mar 2014CWJC/24800/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order confiscating a dumper. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of differential treatment regarding pending proceedings against another owner, holding the respondent acted in light of a prior court direction and that the petitioner could file an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to file appeal.

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24800 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Ajit Kumar Singh S/o Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Bhagli, P.S. Nabinagar, Dist. Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Authorized Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Area, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The Station Head Officer, Indrapuri, Police station, District Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 2 06-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a dumper bearing registration mark and No. BR 26E-0571 which was searched and seized in connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No. 487 of 2012. Along with the aforesaid dumper another dumper bearing Registration Mark & No. BR 24G-2213 belonging to the some other person was also seized. The respondent initiated a confiscation proceeding vide Confiscation Case No. 05 of 2013 in respect of the aforesaid two vehicles. The owner of the vehicle bearing Registration Mark and No. BR 24G- 2213 approached this Court for provisional release of the dumper. A Bench of this Court by order dated 30-01-2013 directed for consideration of the

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.24800 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2014

¶4

2/5

¶5

case of the petitioner for provisional release of the vehicle by the confiscating authority i.e. Divisional Forest Officer.

¶6

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that pursuant to the said order the confiscating authority provisionally released the said dumper in favour of the owner thereof. The petitioner also approached this Court vide CWJC No. 3785 of 2013 and, by a common order passed in CWJC No. 2942 of 2013 and analogous writ petitions (Annexure-4) this Court disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:-

¶7

“In this batch of cases, there are many cases in which the confiscation proceeding is pending since more than a year and definitely since last more than four months, and at different stages. In the circumstances, this Court directs that all the pending proceedings before the respondent Divisional Forest Officer, which are pending since more than four months, and at different stages, must be concluded and final orders must be passed in accordance with law positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which he shall take steps for release of the respective vehicles on provisional basis in the manner laid down herein above.

¶8

Lastly, this Court observes that the holding of quasi-judicial proceeding by the Divisional Forest Officer in the matter must take precedence over his administrative works, as it threatens the infringement of Constitutional Right of a Citizen, and must be given priority to ensure time bound conclusion of the same as laid down herein.”

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.24800 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2014

¶10

3/5

¶11

In the light of the said order the respondent Confiscating Authority concluded the proceeding in respect of the vehicle of the petitioner and passed final order confiscating the said vehicle vide order dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure-5).

¶12

The submission of the petitioner is that one proceeding bearing Confiscation Case No. 5 of 2013 was initiated for confiscation of the two dumpers, one of them belonging to the petitioner. In the light of the order passed by this Court the aforesaid proceeding has been concluded only in respect of the petitioner whereas the same is still pending in respect of another dumper bearing Registration Mark & No. BR 24G 2213. It has, thus, been submitted that the two aggrieved persons have been considered differently by the respondents. It is also the contention of the petitioner that by the common order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2942 of 2013 and analogous matters (Annexure-4) the confiscating authority was directed to dispose of all pending cases but the said proceeding in respect of another vehicle has till date been kept pending and the said proceeding was finally disposed of only in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle..

¶13

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner aggrieved by the said order can file appeal and seek

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.24800 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2014

¶15

4/5

¶16

interim relief in the light of the order passed by this Court on his writ petition being CWJC No. 3785 of 2013.

¶17

I have heard the parties. It appears that the respondent Confiscating Authority in the light of the order passed by this Court on the writ petition filed by the petitioner proceeded to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The order, therefore, appears to have been passed in the light of the direction of this Court. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard raising a grievance that he has been treated differently by the Confiscating Authority. True it is that the Confiscation Case no. 5 of 2013 in respect of the dumper no. BR 24G-2213 is still pending for consideration but the same cannot be treated as a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Confiscating Authority considering the fact that the same was disposed of in the light of the order passed by this Court. This Court, therefore, does not find much force in the submission of the petitioner that the order passed in the case of the petitioner by the Confiscating Authority be quashed and the Confiscating Authority be directed to dispose of the Confiscation Case no. 5 of 2013 in respect of both the vehicles. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner can very well file appeal and raise an issue seeking provisional release of the vehicle.

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.24800 of 2013 (2) dt.06-03-2014

¶19

5/5

¶20

Regard being had to the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for in this writ petition by invocation of its extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. The application fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Let it be recorded that the petitioner after arguing the case at some length has taken a stand before this Court that he would file an appeal against the impugned order and will seek condonation of delay on the ground that he had been bonafiedly pursuing this matter before this Court. He is granted such liberty.

¶22

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶23

Shyam/-

Ajit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bisheshwar Prasad Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors.

M/s Kamla Construction, Begusari Vs The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Begusari and Anr.

Kamaldeo Singh Vs The Estate Of Jamuna Singh, Saran and Ors.

Shashank Shekhar Prasad Vs Patna Municipal Corporation, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs The Patna Municipal Corporatio and Ors.

Mangal Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.