Dharmadhikari, J.–1. A common order is being passed in this petition with a batch of petitions W.P. No. 1189/98, Amar Chand Jain and another v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 1236/98, Kripa Shankar Singh v. State of M.P. and others and W.P. No. 3769/97, Umashankar Bhargava v. State of M.P. and others as common question of general importance arises for decision.

2. The question raised is whether as a result of deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as an effect of the provisions of Section 39(1)(d) of the said Act, there exists no power with the Authorities under the Act or the Code to release any vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of an offence under the Act. Learned Single Judge I.P. Rao, (as he then was) in State of M.P. v. Sayed Yahya Ali, 1995 (II) MPWN 124 = 1995 MPLJ 791 and a division bench at Gwalior consisting of Justice S.Dwivedi and Justice S.S. Jha in its Judgment in L.P.A. No. 152/99, State of M.P. v. Asad Amin decided on 8.5.1996 have taken a view that after omission of Section 50(3) read with Section 39(1)(d) of the Act power to release any seized vehicle for alleged commission of the offence under the Act no