- (1.) BY Court I.A. No. 2083 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner, praying for allowing him to carry out certain amendments in the original writ application in order to incorporate certain developments which had transpired during the pendency of this writ application and also the corresponding prayers thereto. 2. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that though the order of confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle alongwith the materials loaded thereon, was passed by the Respondent No. 3 on 13.12.2003, in Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2003 but initially the petitioner had not challenged this order as also the order of the appellate authority dated -22.06.2004, passed in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 1 of 2004 dismissing the aforesaid order of confiscation. Rather, the petitioner in the instant writ application has challenged the order of the Revisional authority dated -27.11.2004, which was passed against the order of the appellate authority. The petitioner being now advised to challenge the orders, both of confiscation as also the order passed by the appellate authority against the order of confiscation and therefore, the petitioner seeks to amend his original writ application in order to incorporate certain additional prayers challenging the order dated 13.12.2003, passed in the Confiscation proceedings and the order dated 22.06.2004, passed by the appellate authority in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 1 of 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents raises no objection. 4. Considering the fact that the nature of reliefs, as claimed by the petitioner in the original writ application, is not likely to be altered by the amendments sought to be made, prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No. 2083 of 2009 shall form part of the original writ application. 5. I.A. stands disposed of. W.P. (C) No. 1144 of 2005 Heard Sri Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P. -IV for the respondent State.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.11.2004 (Annexure -5) passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner's Revision Application filed against the order dated 22.06.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure -4), was rejected. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order of confiscation dated 13.12.2003 (Annexure -3) passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Confiscation Case No. 19 of 2003 whereby the petitioner's vehicle was confiscated under the provisions of Indian Forest Act and also to quash the order dated 22.06.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 5) in Confiscation (Forest) Appeal No. 1/2004. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner is the owner of a commercial vehicle namely a Jeep bearing registration No. JH10C -1587 used to be plied by the driver engaged by the petitioner. On 15.10.2003 at about 5.00 AM, the vehicle was intercepted by the forest officials and on inspection, it was found loaded with some forest produce. The driver and two co -passengers who were present along with the vehicle were promptly detained on their failure to offer a reasonable explanation regarding the circumstance in which the forest produce was being transported in the vehicle. A criminal proceeding was thereafter initiated on the basis of the prosecution report of the concerned authority against not only the three persons who were arrested at the spot but also against the petitioner on the ground that he happens to be the owner of the seized vehicle. A confiscation proceeding was thereafter initiated on the basis of the prosecution report in respect of the vehicle. The petitioner was noticed and he had submitted his written statement claiming specifically that the vehicle being a commercial vehicle, it was entrusted to the driver with strict instruction to use for carrying passengers and the driver was never instructed to carry or transport any forest produce and further, that the loading of the forest produce and transportation of the same, was absolutely without his knowledge. The concerned authority, had however dismissed the petitioner's objection and by the impugned order, proceeded to confiscate the petitioner's vehicle. Against the order of confiscation, petitioner preferred appeal but his appeal was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal of appeal, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Revisional Authority which was also dismissed.
(3.) SRI Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders would submit that the order of confiscation is totally against the provision and spirit of Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel explains that according to the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, no order of confiscation of any vehicle could be made when it is proved by the concerned owner of the vehicle that the use of such vehicle was without his knowledge or connivance and all reasonable and necessary precaution has been taken against the use of the vehicle for commission of forest offence. Learned counsel explains that the prosecution report which was submitted before the Confiscating Authority, had categorically indicated that after investigation it was established that the petitioner, though being the owner of the vehicle, was not involved either in loading of the forest produce or in the transportation thereof on the vehicle and such loading on the vehicle was done by the passengers without the knowledge of the petitioner. The report also had confirmed that the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle and was entrusted to the driver and it was in his exclusive use and occupation.;