The main legal point established in the judgment is that confiscation proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 require a 'reason to believe' for initiating proceedings, and the alleged offense must be related to forest produce. The failure to prove these elements rendered the confiscation proceedings not maintainable.

ORDER :

1. W.P. (C) No. 552 of 2021 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 146 of 2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. JH-02AX-7856 (Haiwa). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

2. W.P. (C) No. 553 of 2021 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 145 of 2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. JH-02L-8173 (Dumper). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

3. W.P. (C) No. 572 of 2021 has been filed for quashing/ setting aside the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 144 of 2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. JH-01AB-6746 (Dumper). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

4. W.P. (C) No. 578 of 2021 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 139 of 2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. OD-23C-5599 (Haiwa). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

5. W.P. (C) No. 726 of 2021 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the proceeding of Confiscation Case No. 143 of 2020 initiated against the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. UP-32FN-5524 (Haiwa). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 26.5.2020, the respective vehicles of the petitioners were parked near road that too not within forest area, which were seized by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioners’ vehicles are commercial in nature and they along with their family members are fully dependent on the income by plying the said vehicles. An FIR was lodged being Patratu P.S. Case No. 104 of 2020 against the owners and drivers of the vehicles in question, on perusal of which, it would be evident that respective vehicles of the petitioners were found empty. The petitioners except the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 578 of 2021 have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court whereas the petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 578 of 2021 has been released on bail by the court below itself.

7. It is further submitted that confiscation proceedings for the vehicles in question have also been initiated and the petitioners have been issued notices in the said cases from which it will transpire that the confiscating authority has neither applied his mind nor has bothered to go through the documents and has initiated the confiscation proceedings against the petitioners’ vehicles in a very casual manner. On perusal of the FIR itself, it will appear that sand was not recovered from the vehicles. Moreover, no offence relating to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short “the Act, 1927”) has been alleged against the petitioners in the FIR. The vehicles were seized in the month of May, 2020 and since then those have been lying idle. It is thus submitted that in absence of recovery of any forest produce from the vehicles in question, confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated against them.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petitions are not maintainable at this stage since the petitioners have not exhausted the alternative remedy available to them under the provisions of the Act, 1927. Section 52 (1) of the Act, 1927 provides that when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce, together with al