Disposed¶35

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Sept 2024CWJC/16744/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure - forest offence - crushed stone chips - provisional release of seized truck/dumper BR-02AA/6312 - confiscation case pending before Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram - undertakings (payment of fine, no sale/transfer, production as required, abide by final order) - liberty to approach authority - four-week timeline - Bihar Forest and Environment Department - no counter affidavit - Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (2002) 10 SCC 283 cited in prayer only.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before Respondent No.2 with undertakings (to pay the fine imposed, not sell/transfer the vehicle, produce it as and when required, and abide by the final confiscation order); appropriate order expected within four weeks of such petition. ¶35

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of his seized HGV Truck (Dumper) bearing registration No. BR02AA/6312 pending the confiscation proceeding. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appropriate petition before Respondent No.2 if the confiscation proceeding has still not ended and/or any order has not been passed.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The petition before Respondent No.2 is to be accompanied by undertakings: (i) to pay the fine imposed for release of the vehicle, (ii) not to sell/transfer it and to produce it as and when required, and (iii) to abide by the final order of the confiscation proceeding.

¶29

Key takeaways

On a petition filed by the petitioner within four weeks, the appropriate order is expected to be passed.ratio¶36
Keeping the seized truck under the open sky is a national loss.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), by oral order dated 05-09-2024, disposed of CWJC No.16744 of 2023 in which the petitioner, registered owner of a truck (BR-02AA/6312) seized on 06.03.2020 while carrying crushed stone chips, sought provisional release of the vehicle during the pendency of Confiscation Case No. 21 of 2020 (corresponding to Forest Case No. 15/2020) before the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. The State opposed, pointing to the absence of any release petition or undertaking for payment of fine. The Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to move Respondent No.2 with undertakings to pay the fine imposed, not to sell/transfer the vehicle, to produce it as and when required, and to abide by the final confiscation order, observing that keeping the truck under the open sky is a national loss; an appropriate order was expected within four weeks of such petition. The petition had invoked Sri Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (10) SCC 283.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16744 of 2023

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar Son of Sri Manik Chand Gupta Residence of 140 Abhiyanta Nagar Bankers Colony P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Forest and Environment Bihar Patna.

¶7

Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtash at Sasaram.

¶8

Conservator of Forest, Rohtash at Sasaram Circle.

¶9

Ranger, Darigaon Forest Precincts, Rohtash at Sasaram.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Adv. Mr. Amardeep Lokpriya, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Singh ( AAG 13 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 05-09-2024

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is

¶14

allowed to made necessary corrections in the name of respondent no.2 in course of the day.

¶15

Heard the parties.

¶16

The writ petition has been filed for the following

¶17

reliefs:-

¶18

“That this writ application is being filed with a prayer to direct Provisional release the HGV Truck (Dumper) Bearing registration No. BR02AA/ 6312 which was seized despite having proper documents in possession of the Driver who produced entire original documents at the time of Seizure, but the respondent authority seized the vehicle as aforesaid & Confiscation Case No. 21 of 2020 corresponding to Forest Case

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.16744 of 2023(2) dt.05-09-2024 2/4

¶20

No.15/20 was registered. As such the petitioner prays for relief's specifically prayed in paragraph below:

¶21

2 That specifically and candidly the petitioner prays for following main reliefs.

¶22

(i) That for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to release the HGV Truck (Dumper) Bearing registration No BR-02AA/6312 provisionally which was seized by the respondent & Forest Case No.15/20 registered as such direction may kindly be given to respondent to release the Truck bearing Registration No BR- 02AA/ 6312 on the basis of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Versus State of Gujrat reported in 2002 (10) SCC 283 (Para-17).

¶23

(ii) That any other relief or relief's for which the petitioner be found entitled in law be granted to them.

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that he is a registered owner of the vehicle no. BR-02AA/6312 (Truck) which was intercepted and crushed stone chips were found present in the said truck. However, as the driver escaped, in absence of any document and having realized that the stone chips are identical to the Fajil reserved forest area, it was seized.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure having been made on 06.03.2020 is lying idle under the sky, is bereft of any advantage and continuous exposure will

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.16744 of 2023(2) dt.05-09-2024 3/4

¶27

make no purpose.

¶28

Learned State counsel submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that he has preferred any petition for the release of the vehicle and has given any undertaking for payment of fine and in that background, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶29

The writ petition is of the year 2023 and, as usual, there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State official. Confiscation Case no. 21 of 2020 (corresponding to Forest Case no. 15/2020) is pending before the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram at per the petitioner. He has made categorical statement before the Court that the confiscation proceeding has not come to an end. In that background, it would be proper that he files an appropriate petition before the Respondent no.2 with an undertaking that:

¶30

(i) he will be paying the fine imposed for the released of the vehicle,

¶31

(ii) he will not sell/transfer it off and will produce as and when required,

¶32

(iii) he will be abiding by the final order of the confiscation proceeding.

¶33

In view of the fair submission of the learned

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.16744 of 2023(2) dt.05-09-2024 4/4

¶35

counsel for the petitioner, not opposed by the State counsel and further keeping the truck under open sky is a national loss, in that background, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer appropriate petition, if the confiscation proceeding has still not ended and/or any order not passed, as has been made to understand by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

It is expected that on the petition filed by the petitioner within four weeks, the appropriate order shall be passed.

¶37

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶38

perwez

¶39

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Choudhary @ Rohit Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Chandra Prakash Singh @ Chunnu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dhananjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Priti Priya Vs The State of Bihar through the Mr. Pratyaya Amrit, Principal Secretary, Health Department