LAWS(JHAR)-2006-5-52

KANCHAN AGRAWALA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On May 15, 2006
Kanchan Agrawala Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.8.2005 passed by Divisional Forest Officer -cum -Confiscating Authority, Ramgarh, Hazaribagh whereby he has passed order for confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner for committing forest offence by transporting 250 gunny bags of soft coal in the said vehicle.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history which will show as to how the confiscation proceeding continued for five years.

(3.) THE petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh who is the Appellate Authority and the same was registered as appeal No. 21/2002. The said appeal was heard by the Deputy Commissioner on 7.6.2002 and order was reserved. When the Appellate Authority did not pass final order in the appeal and the same was kept reserved for more than one and half years, petitioner filed writ application being WPC No. 1505 of 2004. The said writ application was disposed of by this Court on 17.3.2004 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three weeks. When the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition being Contempt (civil) Petition No. 697 of 2004. It was only after the contempt petition was filed, a show cause was filed by the appellate authority stating that the appeal was disposed of on 1.10.2004 and the case was remanded back to the Confiscating Authority for passing fresh order within ten days. Again, after remand of the case when the Confiscating Authority did not dispose of the case within the specified time, the petitioner had no alternative but to file another writ application being WPC No. 1380 of 2005 on 10.3.2005 for release of the vehicle which was seized and lying with the police since 30.8.2001. The writ application was disposed of on 29.3.2005 directing the Confiscating Authority to release the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner. However, since the petitioner could not furnish bank guarantee the vehicle was not released.