- (1.) HEARD Shri Shrawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite parties.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 passed in Appeal No. 03/14 -02 -2013 (Irshad Ali Vs. Prescribed Authority/Regional Forest Officer, Shrvasti), by which the issue has been remanded back to the Prescribed Authority/Regional Forest Officer, Shravasti. Further the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the Prescribed Authority/Regional Forest Officer, Shravasti to release vehicle no. U.P. 40T/0398 Eicher D.C.M. in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) SUBMISSION of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the Confiscation case no. 02/2010 -11 arising out of Case No. 16 -17/10 -11 (State Vs. Irshad Ali) on 09.11.2010 at about 3.00 a.m., staff of Forest Department saw a vehicle i.e. Eicher D.C.M. coming from the reserve area of forest and when they made an attempt to stop the vehicle, the driver of vehicle jumped out and ran away. On checking the vehicle, 17 Bota (logs) Sagaun wood was recovered from the said vehicle. On 13.11.2010, Forest Officer, Bhinga Range filed an application before the Prescribed Authority with a prayer that seized vehicle, which belongs to the petitioner is liable to be confiscated in favour of State. The Prescribed Authority (opposite party no. 3) on the application of Forest Department, issued notice to petitioner to file reply. It is further submitted that on 03.12.2010, petitioner filed an application before the opposite party no. 3 for the release of vehicle in question under Section 53 of Indian Forest Act, being owner of the vehicle, mentioning therein that one Atique got his D.C.M. on fair of Rs. 5000/ - through Chandan Transport Company and commission Agent Chhawani Chauraha, Bahraich and one Munnan, driver of Vehicle went on booking and the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence in question and he has also no knowledge about the offence. It is also submitted that petitioner came to know about the seizure of his vehicle by the Forest Department through newspaper. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.02.2011 rejected the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle and ordered for confiscation of vehicle in favour of the State.;