2025:JHHC:26958 1 W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2025 Shivji Kumar Singh @ Shivjee Kumar Singh, Aged about -48 Years, S/O Late Kishori Singh, Resident of Village Ganeshpur, Post + P.S.-Shikari Para, District- Dumka (Jharkhand)-813106 ….........Petitioner(s) Vrs. 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi(Jharkhand)-834002; 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. + P.S. + District-Dumka (Jharkhand) -814101 3.The Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka, P.O. + P.S. + District-Dumka, (Jharkhand)-814101; 4.The Range Forest Officer, Hijla East Forest Range, Dumka, P.O+P.S.+Distict-Dumka(Jharkhand)-814101; 5.The Forester, Shikari Para Forest Beat, Hijla East Forest Range, Dumka, P.O. + P.S. + District-Dumka, (Jharkhand)-814101. .......... Respondent(s) ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C to A.G. 03/04.09.2025 Inspite of time granted vide order dated 27.08.2025, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State as yet. 2. It is settled principle of law as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported (1978) 1 SCC 405, that nothing can be added and subtracted in the impugned order by filing counter affidavit. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s): “(A)For issuance of the writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.10.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.27/2022 by the Authorised Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka (Annexure-2), the Order dated 11.04.2023 passed in the Confiscation Appeal No. 02/2022-23 of the Appellate Authority cum Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (Annexure-3) as well as Order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Revision Case No. 24 of 2023 (Annexure-4) by the Revision Authority-cum-Secretary, Department of Forest, 2025:JHHC:26958 2 W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2025 Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand in connected confiscation case no. 27/2022 in connection read with the O.C.R.-1055/2022 ( In the Court of the CJM, Dumka). And (B) For issuance of appropriate direction(s) to the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka to release the aforesaid truck number JH-04X- 3144 with the Black Stone/ Metal Chips which was being carried on the said truck. 4. The brief fact of the case is as follows: i. Petitioner is the owner of Truck bearing registration no. JH-4X-3144. ii. On 25/26.05.2022 joint search operation was conducted by the District Administration on the Dumka-Rampurhat main Road wherein 34 trucks carrying black stone/ stone dust were detained including the petitioner’s truck, out of those 34 trucks 18 were arbitrarily handed over to the Forest Department. iii. On 27.05.2022 complaint wasfiled by the Forester, Hilja East Forest Range, Dumka vide Offence Report Number- 17P dated 27.05.2022 read with CC No. 1055 of 2022 dated 27.05.2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and the truck was seized. iv. On 02.06.2022 the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka issued a letter stating that a confiscation proceeding had been initiated against the 18 trucks including petitioner’s truck . v. On 22.10.2022 the Divisional Forest Officer in Confiscation Case No. 27/2022 in connection with Complaint Case No. 1055/2022, without recording subjective satisfaction in relation to reasons to believe that the vehicle was carrying forest produce or has committed forest offence, confiscated the vehicle 2025:JHHC:26958 3 W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2025 vi. On 11.04.2023 Confiscation Appeal No. 02/2022-23 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.10.2022 was dismissed. vii. On 01.03.2025 the Revision Case No. 24 of 2023 against the order dated 11.04.2023 and 22.10.2022 dismissed. 5. The order of confiscation has been challenged before this Court by the petitioner on the following grounds: a) Whether petitioner can be deprived of his property, by the authorities who are witness to the case? b) Whether the confiscating authority is authorized under law to deprive the petitioner from his property without even affording him the right to effectively present his case before the authority who passes the order of confiscation of the property? c) Whether the confiscating authority is authorized under the law to deprive the petitioner from his property without following the law of natural justice, i.e. without examining the prosecution witness (P.W.) and without even subjecting the said P.W. to cross examination by the person whose property is being confiscated? d) Whether the confiscating authority is authorized under law to deprive the petitioner from his property on the sole ground of the prosecution report which was submitted to the respondent authorities in the back of the petitioner and the same was never provided to the petitioner/similarly situated persons, even after demanding the same from the confiscating authority directly as well as from through the record room? e) Whether the prosecution report submitted by the Forest/Range Forest Officer, which is the sole ground for confiscation of the property of the petitioner can be treated before passing the order of confiscation of the property? To buttress his point, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred different orders and the report submitted by the authorities suggesting that the challan is genuine which is reflected in the 2025:JHHC:26958 4 W.P.(C) No. 4620 of 2025 appellate order itself. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has tried to defend the impugned orders, but could not point out any material suggesting the stone chips comes under the definition of “Forest Produce”. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, it appears that there is allegation against the petitioner that the seized stone chips are the forest produce. But, the valid challan has been produced and the challan has been found in order. Thus, it is a clear-cut case of legal business. 8. So far as the allegation of transporting forest produce is concerned, no material whatsoever has been brought to my notice suggesting that the stone chips have been mined from the forest area. Thus, the authorities have passed the impugned orders merely on the basis of secret information and suspicion without having any cogent material. 9. It is settled principal of law that any finding recorded without any evidence is perverse and not acceptable in the eyes of law. Thus, this Court finds that the order dated 01.03.2025 (Annexure-4), passed by the revisional authority in Revision Case No.24 of 2023, the order dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the appellate authority in Confiscation Appeal Case No. 02 of 2022-23 and the order dated 22.10.2022 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondents in Confiscation Case No.27 of 2022, are perverse. 10. Accordingly, the above orders are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle forthwith. 11. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) A.Mohanty