- (1.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's JCB Machine, bearing no.WB -39 -6752 was seized in connection with G. case no.445 of 2005, in spite of the fact that no forest offence had been committed either by the driver or the owner of the vehicle, rather allegation of committing forest offence was upon the officials of DVC. Subsequently, confiscation proceeding, vide Confiscation Case No.47 of 2005 was initiated for confiscating the said machine and in course of that proceeding, enquiry report was called for by the Authorized Officer -cum -Divisional Forest Officer, respondent no.3 from Assistant Conservator of Forest, who on holding enquiry found that neither the driver nor the petitioner (owner) is connected in any manner with the forest offence, rather whatever offence has been committed, that has been committed by the officials of the DVC. In spite of that report, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 27.3.2008 (Annexure 4) under which JCB Machine was confiscated.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, vide Confiscation Appeal No.29 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, and the Deputy Commissioner after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances did hold, vide its order dated 30.9.2008 that the petitioner being owner of the machine never appears to have committed forest offence and as such, machine in question would not be subject matter of the confiscation. On passing of the said order, an application was filed before the respondent no.2 for release of the machine in question but no order in this respect was passed by the respondent no.2 and as such, there was no way out for the petitioner but to come to this Court to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for a direction to the concerned authorities to release the JCB Machine. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in course of pendency of this writ application, some development has taken place which has been brought on record by making statement in the supplementary affidavit that respondent no.3 being aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, preferred a case, vide Revision Case No.41 of 2008 before the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the revisional court by condoning the delay admitted the revision application on 1.4.2009 and also stayed the impugned order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh without issuing notice to the petitioner and as such, the said order dated 1.4.2009 has been sought to be quashed by way of amendment petition, bearing I.A.No.794 of 2009 on the ground that the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi does not have power to condone the delay while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 52 B of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment).
(3.) THEREUPON this court, vide its order dated 23.5.2009 passed the order directing the authorities to release the Machine on execution of the bond. Thus, the question which has cropped up for consideration as to whether Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi does not have power to condone the delay while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 52 B of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment).;