The main legal point established is the strict observance of procedural safeguards and the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned before passing an order of confiscation under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. The petitioner who is the owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01D/4521 by the present petition has challenged the order of confiscation dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division, Karimganj (respondent No. 3) in Forest Case No. PK/05 of 2007-08 of Patharkandi Range, basically on the ground violation of the principles of natural justice and prayed for re-hearing' of the said Forest Case by any other competent authority other than the respondent No. 3, in compliance of the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 ('the Regulation').

2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that on 16.6.2007 he received a notice from the Patharkandi Forest Range Office intimating him that the aforesaid truck was seized by the said authority as the same was found loaded with few bundles of fire wood on 14.6.2007, in response to which he submitted his reply on 26.6.2007 intimating the authority that the driver of the truck was carrying the said goods illegally and without his permission and requested the authority to release the truck. As the vehicle in question has not been released, the petitioner filed another application before the DFO, Karimganj on 3.7.2007 praying for release of the said truck under the provisions of Section 49(A) of the Regulation. As no action was taken by the DFO on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) No. 3486/2007, wherein this Court vide order dated 20.8.2007 directed the DFO to assess the present value of the truck and thereafter on furnishing adequate security for the truck to the satisfaction of the DFO having regard to the value thereof and also on execution of an undertaking to produce the truck as and when required, to release the same in favour of the petitioner. Though by the said order the DFO was directed to assess the value of the truck within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, but no action has been taken by the DFO in spite of receipt of the certified copy and only vide communication dated 29.9.2007 the DFO informed the petitioner about assessment of the value of the truck at Rs. 8,25,000 and asked to take interim custody of the same by furnishing an irrevocable bank guarantee of the said amount. Such direction, according to the petitioner, being not reasonable, he filed an application before the DFO on 4.10.2007 intimating that it is not possible on his part to furnish any irrevocable bank guarantee and prayed for releasing the vehicle after accepting the land security offered by his brother which was, however, rejected by the DFO vide letter dated 5.10.2007. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court again in WP(C) No. 5515/2007 and this Court vide order dated 15.10.2007 directed the DFO to release the truck without insisting for bank guarantee and on furnishing other security as well as on execution of bond offered by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in spite of such direction the vehicle was not released. The further case of the petitioner is that the DFO, in the meantime on, 5.9.2007, issued a notice fixing the aforesaid Forest Case for hearing on 26.9.2007, on which date an application was filed through his brother seeking adjournment for 30 days, on the ground of his suffering from Viral Hepatitis-C, enclosing therewith a medical certificate issued by the attending doctor. Accordingly, the adjournment was granted till 4.10.2007, on which date another prayer for adjournment of the case was made as he could not attend the hearing because of his illness, but the DFO without considering the prayer of the petitioner for adjournment up to 22.10.2007 fixed the case on 9.10.2007 for hearing and on that day the order of confiscation was passed, thereby depriving the petitioner from the right of hearing as contemplated under Sections 49(5) and 49(6) of the Regulation as he has not been given effective hearing and the opportunity to satisfy th