IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 721 of 2023 Date of decision : 25.6.2025. Mohan Lal ...Petitioner. Versus The Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sundernagar. ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Baldev Negi, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 6.11.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi in Cr. Revision No. 01 of 2023, whereby the order dated 7.7.2023, passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Suket Forest Division, Sundernagar, District Mandi has been affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. By the impugned order, a prayer for release of vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. HP-25A-3657 has been disallowed. 3. The petitioner before this Court has been agitating his right for release of vehicle being owner thereof on the ground that the forest offences, if any, involving the aforesaid vehicle was committed without his knowledge and consent and at his back and for such reason, the orders passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sundernagar was not in terms of the factual position as also the law applicable to the facts. 4. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent has placed on record a copy of report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. after investigation of the case in FIR No. 20 of 2023, registered at Police Station, BSL Colony, Sundernagar under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 of IPC. It has also been revealed that the petitioner is one of the accused and he is facing trial before the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO, Sundernagar. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court will be loath in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction against the orders, which -3- cannot be termed either to be illegal or perverse. No error of jurisdiction has also been pointed. 6. In result, the petition being without merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 25th June, 2025. (kck)