D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) BY order dated 14.2.2008 respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, was directed to file counter affidavit and in this connection copy of the petition was also served upon JC to GP II. By order dated 29.2.2008 it was posted on 4.3.2008 and again it has come today (23.7.2008) but without counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction upon the respondents to release the truck No. NL -02D -5864 in favour of the petitioner, who was the registered owner as the same was seized in connection with the forest offence by the Divisional Forest Officer -cum -Authorised Officer, Chatra. North Division in Confiscation case No. 31 of 2004 (Annexure -3). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Confiscating Officer the petitioner preferred Confiscation Appeal No. 69 of 2006 before the respondent No. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra which is pending since 13.4.2006 as he was not holding the Court. With reference to paragraph -12 of the writ petition Mr. Kashyap submitted that when the dates were fixed i.e. 24.4.2006, 11.5.2006, 1.6.2006, 22.5.2006, 13.7.2006, 31.7.2006, 11.9.2006. 12.10.2006, 19.10.2006. 13.11.2006. 7.12.2006. 4.1.2007, 15.2.2007, 12.3.2007, 2.4.2007. 7.5.2007. 4.6.2007, 2.7.2007 and 6.8.2007 the petitioner remained present for pursuing his appeal on the date fixed but on account of fact that the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2 did not hold the Court and his appeal could not be disposed of within span of two years and the truck could not be released In his favour which was lying since 24.5.2004 in the custody of the respondent No. 3 and the truck was subjected to unnatural decay, deterioration in the value and further subjected to loss in livelihood. It was the only source of income of the petitioner.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Praveen Kumar learned JC to GP, II. I find from the pleading and prayer mace in the petition that main grievance of the writ petitioner Is that he has been denied the right of speedy justice as his appeal could not be disposed of for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs.;