NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the writ petition.
(2.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2004 passed in Confiscation Case No. 30 of 2003, by . the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad and the order dated 25.07.2005 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 8 of 2004 and also for release of the tractor No. JH 11A 8538 and trailer No. JH 11A 8539 after proper verification of the petitioners ownership. The petitioners case is that he is the owner of the said tractor and trailer which is a commercial vehicle mainly used for carrying/transporting agricultural goods. It has been stated that on 17.11.2003 the tractor was loaded with some papal tree chiran and was seized by the forest officials. Thereafter, the said case was initiated for carrying forest produce. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which lie had filed reply stating, intralia, that the vehicle was hired by one Arjun Mahto of Village Khamardih who had loaded the said pieces of papal tree which was removed from his raiyati land. It was further stated that he had no knowledge as to whether the said Arjun Mahto had taken permission to remove the said trees from the raiyati land. Evidences were led, but nothing could be brought on record to show that the petitioner had any knowledge that the said goods were illegal and there was valid permit for the same, it was an admitted fact that the tree was removed from the ruiyati land by Arjun Mahto and he had hired the said tractor. The Divisional Forest Officer, without considering the same and without any legal basis, held that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Indian Forest Act and erroneously passed the order of confiscation of the vehicle and the articles loaded thereon. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Collector, Dhanbad, who, by the impugned order dated 25.07.2005, as contained in Annexure 2/b, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhanbad without application of mind.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Divisional Forest Officer as well as the Collector acted arbitrarily and illegally and have wrongly held the petitioners vehicle liable for the consequences of violating the law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that since there is no allegation of involvement of the petitioner, confiscation of his vehicle has no justification. He placed reliance on a decision in Laxman Kisan Mundhe v. Conservator of Forest reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 553, wherein it has been held by the Bombay High Court that where there is no direct involvement of truck owner in commission of offence knowledge cannot be attributed to him and the order of confiscation is not justified.;