JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. The proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2000) read with Section 5/26 and Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were instituted against the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 15.07.2020, the prescribed authority/Divisional Forest Officer, Obra, Forest Division, Obra, Sonebhadra in proceedings by exercise of powers under Section 52(A) (1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 has directed the confiscation of the seized vehicle called ‘Tipper’ in popular parlance having Registration No. UP-64-AT-6465.

2. The cause of action under the aforesaid proceedings against the petitioner arose upon registration of a complaint as Range Case No. 52/Dala/2019-20 by a forest official. The complaint was registered by one Sudarshan Prasad, Forest Guard.

3. The case in brief of the forest authority as set out in the said complaint is this. On 02.03.2020, information was received from an informer that a vehicle/Tipper having Registration No. UP-64-AT-6465 was illegally transporting sand which was excavated from the forest area. The vehicle was intercepted at Markundi. The driver of the vehicle produced documents which authorized carriage of 5 cubic meter of sand. However, the offending vehicle was loaded with a far excess quantity of the sand. The driver on being asked to accompany the officials to the Chopan Range declined to do so and instead called his adherents, namely, Mangala Prasad Maurya, Ajay Kumar Pathak and others. Ajay Kumar Pathak and Mangala Prasad Maurya are hardened criminals, who brutally assaulted the forest officials. Under physical assault the officials sent a request for reinforcement. The police reinforcement promptly arrived. In the presence of the police force, the complainant/Sudarshan Kumar and his associate/Shiv Kumar proceeded to seize the vehicle. After the inspection, an additional police force was called and with their assistance the offending vehicle was taken to the police station. The quantity of the sand loaded on the vehicle was found to be 12.5 cubic meters after measurements were made. The vehicle was illegally carrying 7.5 cubic meters of sand after excavating it from the prohibited forest area. The recovery memo was created on 03.03.2020. On the aforesaid complaint, the criminal prosecution as well as the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (which are the subject matter of controversy in this writ petition) were set on foot.

4. A show cause notice was issued repeatedly to the petitioner on 13.04.2020, 22.05.2020, 08.06.2020 and 15.07.2020. The petitioner appeared before the noticing authority on 29.06.2020 and submitted his explanation.

5. Principally, the following defence was taken by the noticee/petitioner. The petitioner had a valid lease and had deposited over weight charges. The petitioner was falsely implicated. Simultaneous continuance of criminal prosecution as well as the proceedings under the Act simultaneously is contrary to law.

6. The same arguments are reiterated before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In response the forest officials refuted the defence of the petitioner. Form M.M.11 recorded total permissible weight as 5 cubic meters. The form/permit was taken out at 9.38 a.m. at Tehsil-Nagawa, Duddhi. However, the receipt depicting payment of vehicle charges was issued at 6.45 a.m. as per the case of the petitioner. This rendered defence contradictory. The source of 7.50 cubic meters of additional and illegal sand was not disclosed. The sand was illegally excavated on 02.03.2020 from Arazi Gata No. 1767/Kha/10 in the reserved forest area. The depression created by the excavation of the sand was duly inspected by the forest officials. The credibility of the recovery memo has not been disputed even by the petitioner, and its recitals are consistent with the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing.

8. On the foot of the preceding discussion, the pres