CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) SEEKING a direction upon the respondent no. 4Divisional Forest Officer, Sahebganj for release of vehicle bearing registration no. BR10H3848 with wooden logs, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2010 was concluded vide order dated 08.09.2010 by the order of Authorised OfficercumDivisional Forest Officer, Sahebganj holding the confiscation valid and the same was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj vide order dated 04.08.2011 in RMA Case No. 21 of 201011. On a revision application being Revision Case No. 2/Forest/106 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner, the order passed by the original authority and the appellate authority were quashed vide order dated 13.06.2012. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though, the proceeding in Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2010stood quashed and the Deputy Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Govt of Jharkhand directed the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj as well as Authorised OfficercumDivisional Forest Officer to take necessary action in view of order dated 13.06.2012 in the revision case, nonetheless, the vehicle confiscated in the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 50 of 2010 along with wooden logs were not released. Constrained, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further stated that on 09.11.2012, when the matter was listed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand sought adjournment for filing counteraffidavit and seeking necessary instruction in the matter. However, the vehicle of the petitioner and the wooden logs were not released. In the Criminal Case being OCR Case No. 123 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No. 244 of 2012, the entire proceeding has been quashed and the petitioner has been acquitted on 19.09.2012.
(3.) THE learned G.A. appearing for the respondent submits that since the revision authority had passed the exparte order without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.4, the review application was filed before the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment. However, it is fairly submitted by the learned G.A. that under a misconception in law, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was not released by the respondent no. 4. Vehemently controverting the plea of misconception in law, taken by the respondent no. 4, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the review petition itself got dismissed on 25.04.2014 and since there is no provision for review of the revisional order, action taken by the respondent no. 4 is patently illegal and warrants some harsh action against him.;