1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1st August, 2001 passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Jharkhand in Revision Case No. (C)-10/2000 and also for quashing the order dated 3rd April, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Confiscation Case No. 7/1999-2000 as well as the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case No. C-4/1998, whereby the truck of the petitioner, bearing Registration No. BR18-9477, has been confiscated.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the truck, bearing Registration No. BR18-9477. The said truck was seized by the Range Officer, Gamharia in the night of 29/30th December, 1998 with an allegation that there were discrepancies between the quantities, sizes and species of the timber found loaded in the aforesaid truck in comparison with the particulars of the timber i.e. forest produce mentioned in the Transit Permit No. 133658 dated 29th December, 1998 issued by the Range Officer, Noamundi Range and pursuant to the seizure of the truck and the forest produce, a first information report was also lodged. Subsequently, a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Act 9 of 1990) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) for confiscation of the truck of the petitioner. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa vide order dated 24th July, 1999 confiscated the truck of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa under Section 52-A of the Act. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 3rd April, 2000. Aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 52-B of the Act. The said revision petition was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand. Thus, the petitioner has challenged all the said three orders in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is completely ignorant about commission of forest offence for which the truck of the petitioner was confiscated. Neither the petitioner nor the driver/cleaner of the truck had any knowledge about commission of the alleged forest offence. It is also submitted that the aforesaid truck was a public carrier/commercial vehicle and on 28th December, 1998 it was sent to Bara Jamda for loading iron ore for being transported to the factory of M/s. Usha Martin. Unfortunately, the loading agent of M/s. Usha Martin could not get the iron ore loaded on the said truck on that day as the quota had already been exhausted and he, accordingly, asked the driver to wait for few days more before the truck could be loaded with iron ore for M/s. Usha Martin. During that period, the truck was waiting at Bara Jamda itself and one J.B. Chowra, a licensee/owner of Saw Mill at Bara Jamda, engaged the said truck for transporting timber. A transit permit was also issued for the said purpose in the name of one Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, purchaser of the said timber. Learned counsel further submits that under the said situation, the driver and the cleaner of the truck had no occasion to have any suspicion. Moreover, the Forest Officials were also present at the loading point for supervising the loading work and were affixing hammer marks on each piece of timber under their supervision. After loading of the said truck, transit permit and challan were duly handed over to the driver for transporting the said forest produce to Chaibasa. Learned counsel also submits that since in the aforesaid circu