The court balanced the interests of the petitioner and the state in granting relief for interim custody of the seized vehicle, considering the need to protect the marketable value of the vehicle.

R.S. Garg, Ag. C.J.

1. Parties are heard.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the order Annexure P-9 dated 5-7-2000.

3. The short facts are that the petitioner's vehicle Maruti Van No. MP-26C/5407 was seized by the Forest Authorities in relation to P.O.R. No. 3772, finding that it was engaged in illegal transportation of timber. The petitioner made an application for interim custody of the vehicle, but the same has been rejected by the competent authority/Dy. Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur.

4. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the vehicle is rusting and rotting in the custody of the forest officer and the same is not being looked after properly. At the time of culmination of the proceedings in favour of the petitioner, in place of vehicle he would besupplied some junk and in case order for confiscation is passed, the State would be left with some junk which would not be worth any value in the market. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceedings neither the interest of the petitioner should suffer irreparably and the interest of the State should also be properly protected. According to him, the order passed by the authority shows absolute non-application of mind and his petition has been rejected in view of the some order issued by the higher authorities.

5. Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for the State on the other hand says that, the State is also interested in the maintenance, safety and up-keep of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the State submits thai the State is showing its concern about the safety of the vehicle and the order passed by the competent authority is not illegal nor is contrary to law.

6. 1 have heard the parties.

7. Undisputcdly, the vehicle is lying idle for last about 9 months, nobody is taking care of the vehicle and if it is allowed to stand at one place, the tyres and tubes would deteriorate and the metal body of the vehicle would also suffer and may get rusted which may ultimately affect the marketable value the vehicle. It can not be disputed by anybody that if the applicant at the culmination of the trial is entitled to his vehicle, then he must be supplied the same in the condition as it was taken away from him. It also can not be disputed that if the vehicle is to be confiscated, then on the date of confiscation it must have some value. The vehicle can not be allowed to rust and rot, after-all it is the property of somebody.

8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts that the vehicle is lying idle for almost about 9 months and that there is no likelihood of early disposal of proceedings initiated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, I consider present to be a fit case for granting some relief in favour of the petitioner.

9. On petitioner's furnishing an unconditional undertaking in favour of the competent authority along with a bank guarantee of some nationalised bank in sum of Rs, 1,50,000/- saying that in the event of order for confiscation being passed, he would return the vehicle to the authority or in the alternative, if within the time fixed by the authority the vehicle is not returned back, the authority would be entitled to encash the bank guarantee. Petition to the extent as indicated above is allowed. No costs.