1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-state.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“For quashing the order dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure-7), passed by the Reviewing Authority-cum-Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment, Department Jharkhand, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) in Revision petition No. 2/van-Mu-(C)-82/2010 filed under Section 52-B of the Indian Forest Act 1927, communicated to the petitioner by memo no. 2/Van. Muc(c) 82/2010 3276/vapadt. 8/8/2013 against the orders confiscating the tractor of the petitioner, dated 03.10.2008 and 24.09.2010 passed in Confiscation Case No. 4/2007 and Confiscation Appeal No. 32/2008 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division Bokaro (Respondent No. 4) and the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (Respondent No. 3) respectively, whereby and whereunder the learned Reviewing authority has dismissed the Revision petition of the petitioner and refused to interfere with the order dated 03.10.2008 (Annexure-4) passed in Confiscation Case No. 04/2007, by Respondent No. 4 as well as the order dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure-6) passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 32/2008, by the Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the Tractor No. JH-30F-5136 with its Trailer No. JH-01F-1165 of the petitioner, has been ordered to be confiscated for the alleged offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.”

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a confiscation case no. 4 of 2007 was instituted on a report received from Officer-in-charge Mahuatanr Police Station in connection with which a criminal case was registered under Sections 413/414/287 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. He submits that a confiscation proceeding was initiated in connection with a tractor and trailer belonging to the petitioner which was seized bearing No. JH 02 F 5136 and Trailer No. JH 02 G 1537 and it was alleged that illegal coal was being transported through that tractor and trailer.

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that upon receipt of notice in the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner filed an application for release of this tractor and trailer denying the allegation regarding commission of offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It was contended that his vehicles were hired by the co-accused Goverdhan Mahato for carrying coal which he had purchased from one Ganpati Coal Traders. Initially the coal was loaded on the truck bearing another registration number and thereafter it was unloaded and loaded in the tractor and trailer of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that said application for release of the vehicle of the petitioner was rejected by the authorized officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro vide judgment dated 03.10.2008. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the appellate authority and it was specific case of the petitioner that the tractor and trailer are looked after by the driver and the driver has complete control over it. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 24.09.2010 against which a revision was filed bearing revision case no. 2/82-2010 which was also dismissed vide order dated 03.08.2013.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition the criminal case which was initiated against the petitioner has been dropped and the petitioner with others have been acquitted and vide judgment dated 25.08.2017 and he further submits that neither cognizance was taken under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 nor charge was framed under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. According to the petitioner, in this background, as no criminal case initiated against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 therefore, the confiscation proceeding was ipso facto liable to be dropped