The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to order the provisional release of seized vehicles under the Forest Act, 1927, subject to specified conditions and the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings.

Jyoti Saran, J.

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. Since in each of these cases the relief prayed by the petitioners is identical hence they have been taken up together for analogous hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

3. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions seek a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas-Cum-Authorised Officer under the Forest Act, 1927, for provisional release of their respective vehicle pending adjudication of the confiscation proceedings. In each of these cases the vehicle of these petitioners stands seized on grounds of alleged violation of the provisions of the Forest Act and which has led to institution of the Forest Case which is now pending consideration in respective confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer who happens to be the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas.

4. Although learned counsel for the petitioner have tried to support the load of chip stones on the respective vehicles and to submit that each of the load was supported with valid papers/challans but since the matter is pending before the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas at Sasarm hence this Court would refrain to express any opinion on merits of the claim pending final adjudication.

5. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners in support of their prayer for provisional release of the vehicles is that keeping the vehicles under the open sky to face the vagaries of the weather would serve no purpose and would only turn them obsolete rendering them useless for any future use and which would benefit none rather it would only result in loss.

6. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners have stated that the petitioners would not be creating any third party right nor they would alienate the vehicle pending disposal of the respective confiscation case and that they would produce the vehicle as and when required in the confiscation proceedings. It is also the contention of learned counsel that petitions have also been filed before the statutory authority but has remained pending in most of the cases and thus these writ petitions. The individual details of the petitioner in each of the writ petitions are given herein below.

(1) C.W.J.C. No. 12704 of 2014

In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. WB-23C/0681 was seized on allegations of transporting forest produce without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 32 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 42 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(2) C.W.J.C. No. 13078 of 2014

In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH-02K/3473 was seized on allegations of transporting forest produce without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 23 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 33 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(3) C.W.J.C. No. 13107 of 2014

In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-24G/1371 was seized on allegations of transporting forest produce without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 42 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 52 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(4) C.W.J.C. No. 13350 of 2014

In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-24G/1879 was seized on allegations of transporting forest produce without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 42 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 52 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas For