JUDGMENT :

ABDUL MOIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. In pursuance to the order dated 24.01.2023 original records have been produced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and who has himself gone through the records.

3. After perusal of the record learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that there is no order or document on record per which the authority has recorded that the motorcycle recovered from the spot was used in committing the forest offence.

4. The aforesaid statement is recorded.

5. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the order dated 02.12.2021 in Appeal No. 03/81-2-2021-13G/2021 and order dated 04.03.2020 in Range Case No. 22/2019-2020 read with Confiscation Case No. 05/2019-2020 passed by opposite party no. 2 and 3 respectively which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release the Motorcycle Royal Enfield UP-46-H-2760, Chasis No. ME3U3S5C1HLC216071 and Engine No. U3S5C1HL216071 in favour of the petitioner.”

6. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the registered owner of Motorcycle Royal Enfield No. UP-46-H-2760 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘vehicle’). On 26.12.2019, a relative of the petitioner namely Saddam had requested the petitioner to lend him the vehicle for a day for his personal urgent work. The petitioner being the resident of the village and it being a usual practice of helping the neighbours/relatives in their hour of need, the vehicle was given by the petitioner to Saddam.

7. It is contended that on 27.12.2019 at about 04:00 PM the petitioner received information from a villager that at about 05:00 AM on 27.12.2019 Saddam has been arrested by the police from the forest area on the ground of being involved in an illegal felling of trees from the reserved forest area and that the petitioner’s vehicle has also been recovered by the authorities from the spot in question.

8. It is contended that the Regional Forest Officer vide his order dated 27.12.2019, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit, recommended for confiscation of the vehicle. In pursuance thereto, a notice dated 18.01.2020 was issued to the petitioner under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1927’) asking her as to why the vehicle be not confiscated. The petitioner claims to have submitted her reply on 19.02.2020, a copy of which is Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit indicating that (a) her relative Saddam had taken the vehicle on 26.12.2019 and (b) the petitioner has never indulged in any criminal activities or has violated any of the provisions of the Act, 1927.

9. Placing reliance on both the grounds as taken by the petitioner in her reply it was prayed that the vehicle be released.

10. The competent authority vide order dated 04.03.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, did not agree with the reply submitted by the petitioner and thus passed an order under Section 52-A(1) of the Act, 1927 confiscating the vehicle.

11. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 52-B of the Act, 1927 which has been rejected vide order dated 02.12.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, primarily reiterating the grounds which had been taken by the authority while passing the impugned order dated 04.03.2020.

12. Being aggrieved against both the orders instant petition has been filed.

13. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 52(1) of the Act, 1927 read with Section 52A(1) and (2) of the Act 1927 categorically give the power of seizure of the property, which is believed to have been used in committing of any fo