Strict compliance with the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is required for achieving the Act's objectives, and the detention of a vehicle for a forest offence is justified under the Act.

N.W. Sambre, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties. The petitioner claiming to be owner of transport vehicle of Tata make bearing registration No. MH-22/497, which was purchased by him under the Government Scheme being an educated unemployed youth, has questioned the action on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in detaining his vehicle for commission of forest offence under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,58,500/- to the petitioner towards loss caused to him due to illegal withholding of his vehicle.

2. The petitioner claims that, upon a request made by the petitioner, Mahatma Fule Magasvargiya Vikas Mahamandal, Parbhani had sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,01,432/- for purchase of Tata Tempo, against which he got possession of a Tata Tempo Transport vehicle on 2nd May, 1995, under the Self-employment Scheme floated for educated unemployed persons.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the relevant time, he was residing separately from his parents and was residing at village Viregaon, Tq. Vasmat along with his wife, child, grand parents at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition.

4. The petitioner claims that for the purpose of driving of said vehicle, he had appointed one Vilas Kurhe, who holds a valid driving license and used to assist the petitioner in operation of the said transport vehicle.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 19th November, 1996, when he went to Nanded for some personal work, the said transport vehicle which was at Vasmat in the custody of his driver namely Vilas, was hired by one Hiraman Lone, who was resident of Chhabra and was Carpenter by vocation. The said Carpenter Hiraman had hired the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation of wooden material for door and windows from the village Chhabra to Nanded, for which the transportation charges were settled at Rs.500/-. The petitioner further alleged that the driver of the petitioner believing the statement of said Hiraman, as the alleged documents demonstrating that the timber which was to be transported as a legitimate one, has given on hire the tempo for transporting of the said timber.

6. The petitioner further claims that the respondent No. 6 is impleaded as party by name, who at the relevant time was working as Ranger of Forest Department at Nanded, had stopped the vehicle of the petitioner and took the same to the Ardhapur Depot. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 6 in his official capacity has obtained the signature of the driver of the said vehicle namely Vilas on the blank papers and snatched the key of the vehicle. It is the claim of the petitioner that his driver was misguided by the person who had hired the tempo namely; Hiramana and for the bona fide mistake of his driver, the detention of his vehicle by the Forest Officials is illegal. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the respondent No. 6 and 7, who are Forest Officials and involved in the investigation in the alleged forest offence demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- of which Rs.45,000/- was paid in the account of one of the agent of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. According to the petitioner, the above referred facts demonstrate mala fide approach on the part of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The petitioner claims that though his vehicle was detained by the respondents on 18th November, 1996, in spite of his repeated requests for release of the Tempo and in addition to admission of mistake committed by the driver, his vehicle was not released, resulting into the monetary loss to the petitioner. The petitioner for the purpose of claiming compensation has relied upon the demand notice for repayment of loan issued by his financer.

7. Per contra, the respondents have denied the contentions and bona fides of the petitioner. The respondents have come out with a case that the petitioner himself was involve