# Santosh Kumar Chaurasia v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2059 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-chaurasia-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48532
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Forest Act, 1927 - Section 52 - power of
detention
of
vehicle
after
recording
'reasons to believe' - Section 52(3) - after
making a seizure report, the same shall be
sent to the magistrate concerned, Section
52-A - power conferred upon Divisional
Forest
Officer
to
take
action
for
confiscation only on being satisfied that a
'forest offence' is believed to have been
committed
in
respect
of
any
forest
produce, which is the property of the
State Government, Section 52-B - appeal -
an order passed cannot be supplemented
by giving any reasons which are absent in
the orders passed and impugned herein -
'Reasons to believe' as prescribed under
section 52 are necessary to be recorded as
the
order
of
detention/seizure
is
expropriatory in nature and intends to
deprive the owner of his property - prior
to the passing of the confiscating order, it
is essential to come to a conclusion that a
'forest offence' is believed to have been
committed.(Para -7,8,9,11,14)

Petitioner claims to be owner of Truck - hire for
transporting goods - truck of petitioner seized
- transporting 45 logs of Sagwan - forest officer
view - goods were illegally transported - order
of seizure - detention order - does not disclose
any 'reasons to believe' - to implicate the Truck
in question with offence alleged against owner
of goods - proceedings with regard to
allegation of 'forest offence' not adjudicated -
appeal- dismissed - Hence present petition.
(Para -4,9 )

HELD:- Finding is erroneous as the question of
offence committed is yet to be established.
Direction to release forthwith, the truck in
question, which is in custody, on furnishing
proof of ownership and giving an undertaking to
produce the truck as and when required and
with condition that the petitioner shall not sell
the
truck
in
question
without
obtaining
adequate permission from the divisional forest
officer in accordance with law. Question of
confiscation
shall
be
considered
by
the
concerned officer only after the 'forest offence'
in question is decided by the competent court
after trial. (Para - 13,16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

## Text

364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
following the judgment of this Court in the
case of M/s Chaudhary Filling Point (supra)
and observing that the impugned order has
been passed on a clear misreading of the
inspection report, a clear misreading of the
report of MIDCO, non-consideration of vital
piece of evidence in the form of report of the
other OEM Dreser Wayne as well as the
report of the Professor of NIT and improper
invocation of deeming provision under clause
5.1.4 of MDG, the impugned order dated
19.10.2020 (Annexure RA - 8) cannot be
sustained and is set aside with directions to
the respondent - corporation to permit the
petitioner to run the retail outlet forthwith
subject to the petitioner complying with the
other
requirements
for
dispensing
the
petroleum products as are required under the
Act and the Rules.

39. The writ petition stands allowed in
terms of the aforesaid directions.
----------
(2022)05ILR A364
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 2059 of 2022

Santosh Kumar Chaurasia ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Roopani Mishra, Manoj Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Detention of vehicle - The Indian
Forest Act, 1927 - Section 52 - power of
detention
of
vehicle
after
recording
'reasons to believe' - Section 52(3) - after
making a seizure report, the same shall be
sent to the magistrate concerned, Section
52-A - power conferred upon Divisional
Forest
Officer
to
take
action
for
confiscation only on being satisfied that a
'forest offence' is believed to have been
committed
in
respect
of
any
forest
produce, which is the property of the
State Government, Section 52-B - appeal -
an order passed cannot be supplemented
by giving any reasons which are absent in
the orders passed and impugned herein -
'Reasons to believe' as prescribed under
section 52 are necessary to be recorded as
the
order
of
detention/seizure
is
expropriatory in nature and intends to
deprive the owner of his property - prior
to the passing of the confiscating order, it
is essential to come to a conclusion that a
'forest offence' is believed to have been
committed.(Para -7,8,9,11,14)

Petitioner claims to be owner of Truck - hire for
transporting goods - truck of petitioner seized
- transporting 45 logs of Sagwan - forest officer
view - goods were illegally transported - order
of seizure - detention order - does not disclose
any 'reasons to believe' - to implicate the Truck
in question with offence alleged against owner
of goods - proceedings with regard to
allegation of 'forest offence' not adjudicated -
appeal- dismissed - Hence present petition.
(Para -4,9 )

HELD:- Finding is erroneous as the question of
offence committed is yet to be established.
Direction to release forthwith, the truck in
question, which is in custody, on furnishing
proof of ownership and giving an undertaking to
produce the truck as and when required and
with condition that the petitioner shall not sell
the
truck
in
question
without
obtaining
adequate permission from the divisional forest
officer in accordance with law. Question of
confiscation
shall
be
considered
by
the
concerned officer only after the 'forest offence'
in question is decided by the competent court
after trial. (Para - 13,16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)
5 All. Santosh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel.

2. In terms of the order passed by this
court dated 11.04.2022, the instructions
have been filed, the same are taken on
record.

3. The present petition challenges the
order dated 25.08.2021 whereby the order
of confiscation was passed against the
petitioner in respect of his vehicle being
Truck No. UP75 M-9306 as well as the
order dated 21.02.2022 whereby the appeal
preferred under section 52(B) of the Indian
Forest Act was dismissed.

4. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner claims to be the owner of the
Truck bearing No.UP 75 M-9306, which
was purchased by the petitioner after
availing a loan. The petitioner gives his
truck on hire for transporting the goods
from one place to another. On 05.06.2021,
the truck of the petitioner was seized while
it was transporting 45 logs of Sagwan. As
the forest officer was of the view that the
goods being transported on the vehicle
were illegally transported and an order of
seizure came to be passed on 05.06.2021
(Annexure no.4).

5. A perusal of the said seizure report
given to the Magistrate indicates that on
05.06.2021 at about 3.00 am while
checking, 45 logs of Sagwan wood were
being transported illegally by loading the
same on the vehicle in question. It was also
recorded that the inquiry is going on. The
said seizure report was also sent to the
authorized officer under section 52-A of the
Indian Forest Act. It is also informed at the
bar that a case of criminal prosecution
under the provisions of the Forest Act is
pending before the magistrate and the same
is
not
proceeding
any
further.
The
petitioner moved an application stating that
he was a mere transporter and nothing was
recorded as against the petitioner so as to
implicate him in the offence in question, as
such he requested that the Truck in question
be released in his favour. On the said
application, an order came to be passed on
25.02.2021 whereby the authorized officer
exercising his power under section 52-A of
the Indian Forest Act (as amended in the
State of U.P.) proceeded to confiscate the
truck in question. The petitioner preferred
an appeal under section 52-B of the Indian
Forest Act (as amended in the State of
U.P.), which too has been dismissed. The
said orders are under challenge in the
present writ petition.

6. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act,
as amended in the State of U.P., confers the
power on the forest officer or a police
officer to stop and detain any vehicle and
section 52(3) provides that after making a
seizure report, the same shall be sent to the
magistrate concerned. Section 52 is quoted
herein below:

Section 52 :

(i) in sub-section (1), for the
words "vehicles or cattle", substitute the
words "vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains or
other articles";

(ii) for sub-section (2), substitute
the following sub-section, namely:?

"(2) Any Forest-officer or Policeofficer may, if he has reason to believe that
a boat or vehicle of which a forest-offence
has been, or is being, committed, require
the driver or other person in charge of such
boat or vehicle to stop it, and he may
detain such boat or vehicle for such
reasonable time as is necessary to examine
the contents in such boat or vehicle and to
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inspect the records relating to the goods
transported so as to ascertain the claims, if
any, of the driver or other person in charge
of such boat or vehicle regarding the
ownership and legal origin of the forestproduce in question.

(3) Every officer seizing any
property under this section shall place on
such property a mark indicating that the
same has been so seized and shall, as soon
as may be, make a report of such seizure to
the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
offence on account of which the seizure has
been made, and if the seizure is in respect
of forest-produce which is the property of
the State Government, shall also make a
report to the authorized officer."

Section
52-A
of
the
Act
prescribes the procedure after seizure and is
as under :

"52A. Procedure on seizure-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act or any other law for the time
being in force where a forest-offence is
believed to have been committed in
respect of any forest-produce, which is
the property of the State Government, the
officer seizing the property under subsection (1) of section 52 shall without
unreasonable delay, produce it together
with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle,
ropes, chains and other articles used in
committing the offence, before an officer,
not below the rank of a Divisional Forest
Officer,
authorized
by
the
State
Government in this behalf, who may, for
reasons to be recorded, make an order in
writing
with
regard
to
custody,
possession,
delivery,
disposal
or
distribution of such property, and in case
of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes,
chains and other articles, may also
confiscate them.

(2) The authorized officer shall,
without any undue delay, forward a copy
of the order made under sub-section (1)
to his official superior.

(3) Where the authorized officer
passing an order under sub-section (1) is
of the opinion that the property is subject
to speedy and natural decay he may order
the property or any part thereof to be sold
by public auction and may deal with the
proceeds as he would have dealt with
such property if it had not been sold and
shall report about every such sale to his
official superior.

(4) No order under sub-section
(1) shall be made without giving notice,
in writing, to the person from whom the
property is seized, and to any other
person who may appear to the authorized
officer to have some interest in such
property:

Provided that in an order
confiscating a vehicle, when the offender
is not traceable, a notice in writing to the
registered owner thereof and considering
his objections if any will suffice.

(5) No order of confiscation of
any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain
or other article shall be made if any
person referred to in sub-section (4)
proves
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
authorized officer that any such tool,
boat, vehicle, cattle, rope, chain or other
article was used without his knowledge or
connivance or without the knowledge or
connivance of his servant or agent, as the
case may be, and that all reasonable
precautions had been taken against use of
the objects aforesaid for the commission
of the forest offence.

7. Section 52-B provides for an
appeal against the order passed under
section 52-A of the Act.

8. I have perused the order passed
under section 52 of the Act, which is
5 All. Santosh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
contained in Annexure 4, which confers the
power of detention of a vehicle after
recording the 'reasons to believe' and for
such time as is necessary to examine the
contents as contained in the vehicle and to
ascertain the ownership of the vehicle and
legal origin of the forest produce in
question. The action under section 52-A is
specified after the valid order of the
detention is passed.

9. In the present case, as is clear from
the perusal of the Annexure no.4, which is
the detention order, the same does not
disclose any 'reasons to believe' recorded so
as to implicate the Truck in question with
the offence alleged against the owner of the
goods. The same merely mentions that the
goods being 45 logs of Sagwan were being
transported and were apprehended. The
'Reasons to believe' as prescribed under
section 52 are necessary to be recorded as
the
order
of
detention/seizure
is
expropriatory in nature and intends to
deprive the owner of his property.

10. Section 52-A of the Act provides
for steps to be taken after the order of
seizure and for producing the sized goods
before the Divisional Forest Officer, who is
authorized to pass an order after recording
the reasons with regard to the custody,
possession,
delivery,
disposal
or
distribution of such property and further
authorizes the concerned officer in case of
vehicles to confiscate them.

11. A plain reading of the Section 52A makes it clear that the power conferred
upon the Divisional Forest Officer to take
action for confiscation only on being
satisfied that a 'forest offence' is believed to
have been committed in respect of any
forest produce, which is the property of the
State Government. The said condition
precedent prescribes that prior to the
passing of the confiscating order, it is
essential to come to a conclusion that a
'forest offence' is believed to have been
committed.

12. Admittedly, proceedings with
regard to the allegation of 'forest offence'
have not been adjudicated so far. The
petitioner had specifically raised a plea that
he had given the vehicle in question for
hire and had no concern with the goods
being transported therein. The order of the
authorized officer confiscating the goods
does not record that the vehicle in question
was used in the 'forest offence', which
according to the prescribed authority was
being committed in respect of a forest
produce. The order merely records that the
goods in question, being transported, were
the government property. He further erred
in disbelieving the version of the petitioner
that he had given the truck on hire merely
because the petitioner did not disclose as to
who had booked the truck in question.

13. Considering the order passed
under section 52-A of the Act confiscating
the Truck coupled with the fact that the
proceedings for adjudicating the 'forest
offence' have not culminated so far, clearly
the divisional forest officer has erred in
passing the order of confiscation. The
divisional forest officer in terms of the
mandate of section 52-A of the Act was
clearly empowered to make an order with
regard to the custody, possession, delivery
and disposal of such property in addition or
in alternate to the power of confiscation.
No reasons have been recorded as to why
the divisional forest officer considered it
necessary to confiscate the goods when the
trial regarding 'forest offence' is yet to have
started. The appellate authority is equally
silent as to why the order of confiscation
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
came to be passed when the proceedings
for establishing 'forest offence' are pending.
The appellate authority has in fact recorded
that the appellant failed to establish that he
was not involved in the offence. The said
finding clearly is erroneous inasmuch as
the question of the offence having been
committed is yet to be established.

14. The instructions given by the
Standing Counsel provide for the manner in
which the orders are supposed to be passed.
In any event of the matter, it is well
established that an order passed cannot be
supplemented by giving any reasons which
are absent in the orders passed and
impugned herein.

15. Thus, in totality and for the
reasons recorded, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 25.08.2021 and the
order dated 21.02.2022 are liable to be set
aside.

16. Accordingly, the orders dated
25.08.2021 are set aside. It is directed that
the truck in question, which is in the
custody, being the Truck No.UP75 M-9306
shall be released forthwith to the petitioner
on his furnishing proof of ownership and
giving an undertaking to produce the truck
as and when required and with condition
that the petitioner shall not sell the truck in
question
without
obtaining
adequate
permission from the divisional forest
officer in accordance with law. The
question of confiscation shall be considered
by the concerned officer only after the
'forest offence' in question is decided by the
competent court after trial.

17. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A368
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ C No. 4687 of 2022

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., M.G. Marg
Allahabad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kuldeep Shanker Amist

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Judicial review - Court is not obligated
to correct each and every error of law or
fact - decline to offer any interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution on a
technical ground raised - that the order
should
have
been
passed
by
the
Committee
and
not
the
District
Magistrate, in her individual capacity
(Writ- C No. 5090 of 2022 (The Oriental
Insurance Company Limited And 2 Others
Vs. State of U.P. And 133 Others)) - Under
the scheme, if for any reason, the
Insurance Company finds that the claim is
not acceptable or it has reservation in
accepting the claim - proper remedy is to
refer the matter to the District Level
Committee - headed by District Magistrate
- decision of said Committee would be
final. (Para -3,5 )

Claim of petitioner - for grant of benefit under
Mukhyamantri Kisaan Avam Sarvahit Beema
Yojana - rejected by Insurance Company - on a
technical ground - challenge before high court
under writ - disposed of with liberty to raise
grievance before District Magistrate - DM
allowed claim - granting compensation of Rs. 5
lakhs - no fault of claimant - order challenged
on two grounds - DM himself decided case
whereas claim was to be decided by District
Level Committee - income certificate must have