Patna High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 29 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14259 of 2024
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Son of Surendra Singh @ Surendra Kumar Singh,
Resident of Village- Muzaffarpur, P.S.- Sahar (Mahpur), District- Bhojpur at
Ara.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Revisional Authority, Environment and Forest
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Confiscating Authority, Rohtas.
5. The Range Officer, Darigaon, Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 29-05-2025
Heard Mr. Babu Nandad Prasad, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Narednra Kumar Singh, learned AC to GP-22
for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
following reliefs:
I). To issue writ/ writs, order/orders,
direction/directions including a writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the
order dated 30.05.2023 passed in
Forest Revision Case no. 05/2021 by
the Principal Secretary-cum-Revisional
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
2/10
Authority, Patna (Respondent no. 2)
whereby and whereunder he has been
dismissed the Revision Petition in
routine manner (as contained in
Annexure-P/6). Further to quash the
order dated 11.02.2020 passed in
Forest Appeal Case no. 74/2017 by the
District Magistrate-cum-Appellate
Authority, Rohtas (Sasaram) he has
been refused to release finally the
vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-
01GA-5237 Truck (10 Wheels) in
favour of the petitioner and also
affirmed the order dated 28.06.2017
passed by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Rohtas (as contained in Annexure-P/4)
without looking the facts and
circumstances of the case of the
petitioner. It is further quashed the
order dated 28.06.2017 passed in
Forest Confiscation Case no. 25/17(D)
arising out of Forest Case no. 125/16
by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-
Confiscating Authority, Rohtas at
Sasaram without considering the facts
and circumstances of the case of the
petitioner in proper perspectives.
II). To issue a writ/ writs, order/
orders, direction/directions including a
writ in the nature of mandamus
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
3/10
directing the Respondents to release
finally the vehicle Truck bearing
Registration No. BR-01GA-5237 in his
favour forthwith.
III). For granting any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner may be
found entitle in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
fact, the Range Officer, Sasaram, Rohtas, when he was on
patrolling duty on 13.11.2016, he seized several trucks including
the truck of the petitioner loaded with 600 cft. Stone chips,
thereafter, the confiscation proceeding was initiated against the
truck of the petitioner bearing registration no. BR-01GA/5237
along with loaded stone chips. He further submits that the
allegation levelled against the petitioner is completely false,
baseless and misleading and the petitioner has not committed any
offence. The truck of the petitioner was loaded with stone chips
thereon from the business premises of M/s Prakash Stone Works,
Billi, Markundi, Gitti/Bolder, Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh on
11.11.2016
along with sale invoice and on strength of which the
consignment of stone chips was being carried from Uttar Pradesh
to Arwal, Naubatput, Bihar and despite of the valid challan, the
authority did not take any notice of the said challan as well as road
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
4/10
permit of the State of Bihar and they insisted the driver to oblige
him but since the driver failed to do so, the truck of the petitioner
was seized by the authority concerned. The Seizing Officer has not
been examined to prove forest offence and non-examination is
fatal for prosecution as well as there is nothing to show in the
impugned order that how forest offence under Sections 33, 41 and
42 of the Forest Act have been contravened. It appears that in spite
of this on the basis of report of the Range Officer, the Forest Case
No. 125 of 2016 dated 16.11.2016 was initiated by the District
Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Rohtas (respondent no. 3),
who confiscated the truck in question vide order dated 28.06.2017
passed in Forest Confiscation Case No. 25/17 (D) arising out of
Forest Case No. 125 of 2016 without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case of the petitioner in proper perspective.
The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed an appeal
before the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Rohtas
(respondent no. 3) vide Forest Confiscation Appeal No. 74 of 2017
under Section 52 (A) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The
respondent no. 3 heard the appeal of the petitioner on 11.02.2020
and reserved the order, thereafter, the order was passed and the
said authority affirmed the order of the respondent, District Forest
Officer, Rohtas in Forest Confiscation No. 74 of 2017. He further
submits that in fact, the truck in question was released
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
5/10
provisionally vide order dated 26.10.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
10467 of 2018 in Cr. W.J.C. No. 998 of 2018 (Annexure-5). The
petitioner preferred a Forest Revision Case No. 5 of 2021 against
the forest appeal before the Revisional Authority and by raising all
the points in which he proved his innocence. The Principal
Secretary-cum-Revisional Authority, Environment and Forest
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 2)
passed an order dated 30.05.2023 in Forest Revision Case No. 5 of
2021 and he has been pleased to reject the forest revision petition
in routine manner without appreciating the facts and laws involved
in it. From perusal of the impugned orders dated 28.06.2017,
11.02.2020 and 30.05.2023 passed by the respondents, it transpires
that they have failed to consider the case of the petitioner as well
as facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner in proper
prespective.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Section 30 of the Forest Act applies only when stone chips are
brought from forest protected area in contravention to the Section
30 of the Act but in the present case the vehicle truck was seized
from GT Road, Karwandiya which is out of forest protected area,
so no case is made out under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest
Act. He further submits that Mauza must be notified under Section
30 of the Forest Act only remain in force up to period of 30 years
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
6/10
from its publication as per Sections 30(b) and 30(c) of the Act,
whereas the Fazilpur Mauza is said to be notified order dated
02.02.1969 vide Notification No. 595-A/F-ASQ/59. He further
submits that in view of the aforesaid, it appears that the respondent
authority has passed the aforesaid orders in violation of the
provisions of the Forest Act and apart from that the area from
which the recovery was made does not come under the forest area,
so no case is made out under the Forest Act against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the State filed a detailed a
counter affidavit stating therein that the aforesaid orders have been
passed by the authority concerned in accordance with the law after
due consideration of the submission of the petitioner. As per the
prescribed provision of the Section 2(4) (b) (iv) of the Indian
Forest (Bihar Amendment 1990) Act, all products
mining/quarrying carried on inside any protected forest is a “forest
produce”, so stone chips/stone metals/stone boulders/stone
dust/stone pattias and other products converted from illegaly
qarried stone boulders from inside a notified protected forest is a
“forest produce”. The Fazilpur forest area under jurisdiction of the
Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram has been notified as the
“protected forest”, as per the prescribed provisions of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 vide Notification dated 21.02.1969 and there is
no valid stone mining lease approved or operational in any of the
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
7/10
“protected forest” in the Rohtas Forest Division. The vehicle of the
petitioner has violated the rules of the Forest Act and the
authorized Officers-cum-Divisional Forest Officers, Sasaram as
per the prescribed provisions of the Section 52(3) of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 upon intimation that the seized vehicle of the
petitioner was involved in the commission of the forest offence,
bearing Case No. 125 of 2016 initiated confiscation proceeding
bearing Confiscation Case No. 25/17 (B). As per Section 52 (4) (a)
of the Act, 1927, the learned Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas was intimated about the initiation of
the confiscation proceeding against the seized said vehicles of the
petitioner by the Court of the authorized Officers-cum-Divisional
Forest Officers, Rohtas on 07.02.2017. As per Section 52 (4) (b)
and (c) of Act 1927, a Notice No. 542 dated 07.02.2017 was issued
to the petitioner by the Court of the prescribed authorized Officers-
cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram directing the
petitioner to submit reply to the said show cause notice as to why
the vehicle seized in the respective cases should not be confiscated
and accordingly the petitioner had filed a reply before the
Divisional Forest Officer on 09.02.2017, the petitioner, drivers and
other persons have been given enough opportunity to file reply to
the show cause notice and to prove otherwise before the Court of
authorized Officers-cum-Divisional Forest Officer on several
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
8/10
dated i.e. 25.02.2017, 28.02.2017, 08.05.2017, 11.05.2017 and
17.05.2017. The petitioner appeared himself on 11.05.2017 where
statements of the witnesses were recorded and on the rest of the
dates, the petitioner failed to produced any of the witnesses not
even the driver of the said vehicles. The authorized Officers-cum-
Divisional Forest Officers in the Confiscation Case No. 25 of 2017
(D) to prove that the petitioner had taken all the necessary and
reasonable precaution against the misuse of the said vehicle from
committing the said forest offence in violation of Sections 33, 41
and 42 of the Indian Forest Act which is cognizable, non-bailable
and non-compoundable serious forest offences and apart from that
the petitioner has failed to produce any substantial evidence which
could prove that the vehicle was not involved in illegal
transportation of the forest product. As per the prescribed
provisions of Section 52 (5) of the Act, 1927, the owner and the
driver/agent of the seized vehicle has to prove that the vehicle was
used without the connivance and the knowledge of them and it has
to be proved that both owners of the seized vehicle and the
driver/agent have taken all reasonable and necessary precautions
against the misuse of the vehicle in the commission of the any
forest offence. He further submits that it is pertinent to mention the
Fazilpur Forest Area under the jurisdiction of the Rohtas Forest
Division, Sasaram has been notified as a “Protected Forests” as per
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
9/10
the prescribed provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 vide
Government of Bihar’s Notification No. 595-A/F-AQ-5/69 dated
21.02.1969. It is relevant to mention here that there is no valid
stone mining lease approved or operational in any of the
“Protected Forest” in the Rohtas Forest Division. Under Section
30 (b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, declares portion of the forest
to be close for such tempts, not exceeding 30 years, but Section 30
(c) of the Act does not restrict prohibition only to 30 years. It
means that notification under Section 30(c) is still valid for the
protected area notified by the State Government.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties
and perused the material available on record, this Court, therefore,
holds that the truck of the petitioner was loaded with 600 cft. stone
chips thereon from the business premises of M/s Prakash Stone
Works, Billi, Markundi, Gitti/Bolder, Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh on
11.11.2016 along with sale invoice and on the strength of which
the consignment of stone chips was being carried from Uttar
Pradesh to Arwal, Naubatput, Bihar and despite of the valid
challan, the authority did not take any notice of the sale challan as
well as road permit of the State of Bihar and the truck of the
petitioner was wrongly confiscated by the authority concerned and
despite of showing the aforesaid documents before the authority
concerned. Section 30 of the Forest Act applies only when stone
Patna High Court CWJC No. 14259 of 2024 dt.29-05-2025
10/10
chips are brought from forest protected area in contravention to
Section 30 of the Act but in the present case the truck was seized
from G.T. Road, Karwandiya which is out of Forest Protected
Area, so no case is made out under the Forest Act. The authority
concerned have wrongly confiscated the truck of the petitioner, the
orders dated 28.06.2017 (Annexure-P/3), 11.02.2020 (Annexure-
P/4) and 30.05.2023 (Annexure-P/6) are set aside and the truck in
question bearing registration no. BR-01GA/5237 which was
released vide order dated 26.10.2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 10467 of
2018 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 998 of 2018 (Annexure-5).
7. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is
free from all the undertakings as given pursuant to the direction of
this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
10467 of 2018 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 998 of 2018 with respect to truck
in question.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 25.03.2025 Uploading Date .06.2025 Transmission Date NA