- (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 15.4.2014 in Confiscation Case No. 39 of 2013, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Briefly stated, Barhi P.S. Case No. 110 of 2013 was registered for offence under sections 414, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34, I.P.C. and under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioner is the registered owner of the truck bearing No. JH 02 J 9721 which was apprehended and found loaded with coal. The said truck was engaged by one B.D. Enterprises, Hazaribagh for transportation of coal from Kathara area Jarangdih, for which invoices, necessary permits and challans were issued. The Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest officer initiated a confiscation proceeding in which notice was issued to the petitioner who filed his reply on 11.1.2014. The respondent No. 2 thereafter, without providing opportunity of hearing in terms of section 52(4)(d) of the Indian Forest Act, passed order dated 15.4.2014 holding that the trucks bearing No. JH 02J 9721 was involved in illegal transportation of coal under the cover of false document so as to disguise and deceive the lawful authority of department. A case for offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act has been lodged and accordingly, the said truck was confiscated.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to paragraph Nos. 15 and 27 of the writ petition and submits that without affording an opportunity of hearing which is a mandatory requirement under section 52(4)(d) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the impugned order dated 15.4.2014 has been passed and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that in the notice issued to the petitioner neither any description of the area from where the forest produce has been illegally taken away nor the notification under which the said area has been declared a forest area has been brought on record still, a proceeding under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has been initiated which is not permissible in law.
(3.) Mr. R.R. Mishra, the learned G.P. II for the respondent-State of Jharkhand raises preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.;