- (1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.4.2003 passed by the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Revision Petition No. 7 of 1999 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 16.11.1998 and 1.12.1997 passed by Deputy Commissioner -cum -Ap -pellate Authority and the Divisional Forest Officer -cum -Conflscating Officer, Hazaribagh.
(2.) IT appears that the Tractor and trailor of the petitioner was seized by the Forester on 24.1.1993 on the information that the said Tractor was loaded with Mango woods and 2 -3 persons were sitting on the said vehicle. When the Forest Officer intercepted the vehicle, the person sitting in the Tractor fled away and on inquiry it was found that the Tractor was coming from Bijulia Mouza carrying with Mango woods cut from the forest land. A confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer and after hearing the petitioner passed final order confiscating the Mango wood and the Tractor. Petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was finally heard and dismissed. Petitioner then filed revision before the Secretary, Department of Forest, Govt. of Jharkhand who affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Confiscating Authority and dismissed the Revision. Mr.S.S. Choudhary, learned counsel raised the following points : (i) The revisional authority passed the orderex parte without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (ii) The Mango woods are not covered under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and there is no need to take any transit permit for carrying Mango wood. The entire confiscation proceeding is therefore vitiated in law. (iii) The value of the seized Mango trees would not be More than Rs.5,000/ - and as such in lieu of confiscation the Tractor worth more than Rs.4,00,000/ -(Four lacs) would not have been confiscated by the authority.
(3.) SO far first point raised by the petitioner is concerned, it transpires from the revisional order that several notices were given to the petitioner but he did not turn up. The revisional authority also got the notice published on 10.2.2003 in the newspaper namely, Hindustan. But inspite of service of notice by publication in the newspaper, petitioner did not turn up. Consequently the revisional authority proceeded to decide the revision application ex parte. In my opinion therefore, the contention of the petitioner on the first point has no substance. ;