NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 and also the order dated 14.7,2003 passed by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction for release of Truck No. HR -38F -3445 which has been confiscated by the respondent No. 3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents.
(2.) WHEN the case is taken up for hearing Mr. Kalyan Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order has been passed finally disposing of the Confiscation Case No. 19/2002 purported in compliance of the direction of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2002 in W P (Cr.) No. 186/2002 (Annexure -1) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention on the penultimate paragraph of the 20 sa /5/2 id 01 4o rd Pe ag r e a 8nd submitted that in that order the petitioner was directed to file a petition for release of the truck in question within two weeks with further order that if such petition is filed, the Divisional Forest Officer - -Cum -Autho -rised Officer, Hazaribagh Division. Hazaribagh shall dispose of the matter within 15 days thereafter. After hearing both the parties and from perusal of the said order of this Court, it is evident that there was no such direction to dispose of the Confiscation Case No. 9/2002 finally rather there was direction for disposal of the application for release of the truck in question to be filed by the petitioner. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Kalyan Ray that the said order of this Court has been misconstrued by the respondent No. 3 and even without giving petitioner any opportunity of filing show cause reply or of hearing on the merit of the confiscation proceeding, the same has been finally disposed of only on the basis of the interlocutory application wherein release of the truck in question was only prayed for. Kiti Rana Versus State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) The Deputy Commissioner, appellate authority, also did not appreciate the case in proper perspective and dispose of the appeal on merit by his order dated 14.7,2003 dismissing the appeal and upholding the said order of the Divisional Forest Officer passed in Confiscation Case No., 19/2002.
(3.) MR . Arvind Kumar Mehta, J.C. to S.C. -II, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, fairly submitted that though there is substance in the grievances of the petitioner, there is a provision for revision against such order and the petitioner should have invoked the said jurisdiction instead of filing this writ application. When he was confronted with the earlier order admitting this writ application despite the ' said objection and stage of final hearing, he fairly agreed that the matter may be remitted back to the Divisional Forest Officer -Cum - Authorised Officer, Hazaribagh for fresh hearing and disposal of the Confiscation Case No. 19/2002 on merit.;