The onus is on the owner to prove lack of knowledge and connivance in illegal transportation, and the absence of provisions for releasing the vehicle on payment of fine.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.1.2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of confiscation has been dismissed.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that while a truck bearing registration No. UP. 7 IA-6300 loaded with Khair wood was coming from Kochas towards Buxar on 18.6.1996, it was seized and a confiscation proceeding was initiated. The Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer by order dated 16.12.1996 directed for confiscation of the truck as also Khair wood loaded on it. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector and when the said appeal was not being disposed of, he preferred Md. Ayub V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., CWJC No. 754 of 1997, before this Court. This Court by order dated 18.12.1997 directed for disposal of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. In the light of the order of this Court, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 27.7.2000. Petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred Revision Case No. C-25 of 2000 Md Ayub V/s. Divisional Forest Officer, Shahabad Forest Davison, Sasaram, and the revisional authority i.e., the Secretary. Environment and Forest Department, Bihar by order dated 2.2.2002 dismissed the revision application.

3. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders filed CWJC No. 5547 of 2002 Md. Ayub V/s. Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Bihar Patna and others, before this Court assailing the aforesaid orders. This Court by order dated 30th of October, 2002 remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate for reconsideration of the appeal. In the light of the order of this Court, petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate and after hearing both the parties, he by the impugned order dated 22.1.2003 dismissed the appeal.

4. Mr. Bechan Jee Ojha appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner had any knowledge that the forest produce were being transported illegally hence, the truck and forest produce are not fit to be confiscated. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Forest Conservator and Anr. V/s. Sharad Ramchandra Kale, (1998) 1 SCC 48. In the said case it has been held as follows :-

-

"1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No. 104 of 1988.

2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to the confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forests. Against his order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to established that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding."

5. I had the occasion to consider the submission in somewhat detail in CWJC No. 4160 of 2003, Manoj Kumar Sharma V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., disposed of on 4th November, 2003 wherein I have held as follows :-

-

"Generally speaking whoever seeks relief from an adjudicating authority on existence of a particular fact such person has to prove that fact but the legislature in its wisdom can alter this rule and put on the other person the onus to prove such facts. In my opinion when the legislature has cast duty on the owner to satisfy certain requirement to avoid confiscation the Court cannot substitute its opinion ac