Authorities must promptly release confiscated property when the confiscation order is set aside, and failure to do so may result in the payment of compensation to the owner.

Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.12.2001 made in W.P.No.23094 of 2001.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.2002 made in W.P.No.23094 of 2001, the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Forest and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai, has preferred the above appeal.

2. The respondent-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No.23094 of 2001 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to release the lorry bearing registration No.TN-45D-7677 in good condition or to pay the cost of the vehicle of Rs.6 lakhs to the petitioner together with the monetary loss suffered by the petitioner due to non-release of the vehicle after 23.12.1999, estimated at Rs.500/- per day.

3. The learned single Judge, after finding that since the order of confiscation has already been set aside in Crl. Appeal No.64 of 1997 by the competent Court, the respondents ought to have returned the vehicle immediately, accepted the stand taken by the petitioner and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day to the petitioner from 24.12.1999 till the release of the lorry.

4. While taking up the appeal, the second appellant-District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division, has filed an additional affidavit dated 29.06.2004, in and by which, it is stated that after passing an order of confiscation on 24.12.1996, the then District Forest Officer, in public interest and to prevent national waste, notified the lorry for public auction, which was conducted on 15.07.1999, wherein the vehicle had fetched Rs.1,19,000/- and the said lorry was also released to the highest bidder on 14.09.1999 itself. It is further stated that if in case the confiscation order is set aside either under Section 49-C or under Section 40-D, Section 49-A(b) provides for the release of the sale proceeds to the persons from whom it is seized after deducting the incidental expenses. It is further stated that even if the confiscation order is ultimately set aside by the Courts and if the vehicle is sold in auction, in the mean time, the vehicle owner is entitled to the sale proceeds as contemplated under Section 49-A(b) of the Act. The second appellant further stated that he has taken charge of the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore Division on 16.07.2001 and he came to know about the entire matter only after the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.23094 of 2002 dated 10.12.2001. According to him, he realised that the writ petition ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order passed in Crl. Appeal No.64 of 1997. In view of the same, he ascertained that the writ petitions were filed only in the year 2002. Considering the subsequent development, which had taken place, it is stated that the second respondent is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,050/- after deducting 5% towards the incidental expenses from out of the sale proceeds, to the first respondent. He also stated that he has already initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet to the concerned Superintendent and the Junior Assistant even on 08.02.2002.

5. We have heard Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent herein with reference to above information filed in the form of an additional affidavit. We have also verified all the earlier proceedings and the order passed.

6. It is useful to refer certain dates and events in order to appreciate the claim of the appellants as well as the respondent herein. On 25.10.1996, the driver Sabapathy took the vehicle for transporting the household things of one officer from BHEL to Bangalore. The Forest Officer alleged that the vehicle was seized due to transportation of the sandalwood without any valid permit, which was not known to the owner/petitioner/respondent herein and he has no knowledge about the said occurrence. The said incident occurred on 24.10.1996. Since the driver did not ret