TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Modi learned G.P. I for the respondents.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the order dated 10.11.2001 passed by the Revisional Authority -cum -Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Jharkhand, Ranchi, by which he has allowed the revision filed by the Divisional Forest Officer and has modified the interim order passed by the Appellate Authority ex parte without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner. The petitioners Truck bearing Registration No. BR -18/9677 and BR -18/6777 valued at Rs. 7,00,000/ - and 5,00,000/ -respectively were seized by the Forest Range Officer, Rakha Mines on 2.2.1999. Against the order of confiscation the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur vide Misc. Confiscation Appeal No. 108 of 2000 which is now pending for hearing. By an order dated 23.7.2001 the Appellate Authority passed an interim order directing the release of the aforementioned two vehicles on furnishing Surety Bond of Rs. 10,00,000/ - with two sureties of the like amount each (total Rs. 20,00,000/ -) with a condition that the owner shall not dispose of the vehicles till the disposal of the present appeal. 2001 (1) PLJR 37. Mr. P. Modi G.P. I learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, stated that the order of Revisional Authority is based on the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of the State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2731. At para 7, their Lordships have observed as follows : - - "We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceeding, if any. Nonetheless, if for any exceptional reasons Court is inclined to release the vehicle during such pendency, furnishing a bank guarantee should be the minimum condition." 5. Although it has been held by the aforementioned two judgments referred to above that revision does not lie against the interim order, but the observation of the Honble Supreme Court of India cannot also be ignored. In that view of the matter and as has been already held by the two judgments referred to above that no revision lies against an interim order of Revisional Authority, the order dated 10.11.2001 is hereby set aside and as per the observation of the Honble Apex Court, it is ordered that the vehicles in question shall be released if the petitioner furnishes security bonds as per the order of the Appellate Authority together with Bank guarantees to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/ - for each vehicle (total Rs. 4,00,000/ -) to the satisfaction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jamshedpur. It goes without saying that the Appellate Authority shall attempt to expedite the disposal of the appeal itself. ;