- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution'). The appellant, the owner of motor vehicle i.e. a truck bearing registration No.MH-30-B-2897 challenged the order of confiscation passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest (Authorised Officer) under section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short the 'Act'). The truck was found involved in forest offence on 7.1.1999. It was found that illicitly felled Nimb Wood and Katsawar wood were being transported. The order of confiscation under Section 61-A of the Act was challenged in appeal under Section 61 -D of the Act which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola. While admitting the writ petition, the High Court stayed both the orders and directed release of the truck in favour of the appellant subject to certain conditions. Factual background as stated by the appellant is as follows: According to him truck belongs to him and he had engaged one Mohd. Shabbir, resident of Medshi for transportation of timber on 07.01.1999. That timber was transported accordingly to Geeta Saw Mill belonging to Gangaram Manaji Patel of Kolhapur as per transit pass and as per law. Appellant thereafter learnt that on or about 08.01.1999 the officers of the Forest Department seized said timber including Katsawar from Geeta Saw Mill. Thereafter without any reason said officers took away the truck of appellant which was standing on Mankarna plot near his residence. When appellant could not find his truck, he reported the matter to local police and thereafter he learnt that his truck has been carried away by Forest Department. The contention of appellant is that seizure of truck on the basis of statement given by owner of Saw Mill is illegal. He, therefore, moved application before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, for release of the truck. He also received show-cause notice dated 4.10.2002 from Assistant Conservator of Forest about the seizure of truck. Even as per said show cause notice, there was transit pass for the wood in question and information given by one R.A. Chavan was also suppressed in said notice. There were three passes having number 667308 dated 08.05.1998, 736977 dated 29.10.1998 and 001805 dated 07.01.1999. All these three passes need to be looked together and the entire timber transported is covered by it. Perusal of first two passes reveals that timber therein belongs to Sahebrao Ghuge of Malegaon and Ramchandra A. Chavan of Bodkha. Therefore the allegations made in show cause notice were incorrect and false. He appeared before the authority issuing show cause notice and requested to supply all documents but respondent avoided to supply these documents and did not even permit him to take inspection of records. Ultimately on the basis of information and documents which he could gather, he filed his reply pointing out his innocence. He also pointed out report dated 17.03.1999 submitted by Range Forest Officer Shri Bansod communicating that the report of illegal transportation was doubtful. He also relied upon statement of guard Shri Chavan and others to point out that their statements also did not support the statements in show-cause notice. He contended that show-cause notice issued was without any verification from the concerned owners & forest rangers. In spite of this, on 17.06.2002, authority passed the order and confiscated the truck. Hence he preferred Appeal No.42/2002 under Section 61-D but the same came to be dismissed on 14.10.2002. The High Court found that on examination of the transit passes involved it was clear that the transit passes do not pertain to any quantity of Katsawar. Thus the timber of Katsawar which was not there in the earlier transit passes, could not have been included in the third transit pass No.001805 dated 7.1.1998 issued in lieu thereof. It was therefore apparent that alterations were made in the transit passes. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The High Court permitted the respondent to either take the custody of the truck or to confiscate it and in the alternative to proceed to recover the amount of rupees two lakhs by invoking personal bond and the bank guarantee. It appears that the qustody of the vehicle has been taken.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the factual position has not been appreciated properly. It has not been shown that the appellant had taken any personal interest in the alleged changes or any alterations as alleged.;