Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010224772025 2025:GAU-AS:15292-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/362/2025 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT, BLOCK - D, GROUND FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, PIN - 781006, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI PIN 781037 DISTRICT - KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER DIGBOI DIVISION DIGBOI DISTRICT - TINSUKIA PIN - 786171 ASSAM. 4: THE RANGE OFFICER LEKHAPANI FOREST RANGE DIGBOI FORET DIVISION DIGBOI DISTRICT - TINSUKIA PIN - 786182 ASSAM VERSUS 1: KAUSHAL SINGH AND 5 ORS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SON OF LATE RAJ BALLAB SINGH, RESIDENT OF LEDO KALPARA, LEDO COAL PARA, P.O. LEDO, SUB - DISTRICT - MARGHERTIA, PIN - 786182, DISTRICT - TINSUKIA, ASSAM. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA DISTRICT - TINSUKIA PIN 786182 ASSAM. 3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE LEKHAPANI POLICE STATION DISTRICT - TINSUKIA PIN 786182 ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHANGLANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JAIRAMPUR SUB-DIVISION DISTRICT - CHANGLANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH. Page No.# 2/6 6:THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY ITANAGAR ARUNACHAL PRADESH. PRO FORMA OPPOSITE PARTIE For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Government of Assam. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.D. Konwar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mrs. R.B. Bora, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent No.2 and 3. : Mr. A. Chandran, Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 12.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, for the appellant/State of Assam; Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. H. Agarwal, learned Advocate for respondent No.1; Mrs. R.B. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. A. Chandran, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6. By the impugned interim order dated 19.09.2025 passed in WP(C) No.3473/2025, the learned Single Judge has directed that the seized vehicles be released in favour of the respondent No.1 on his furnishing Zimma nama. The contention on behalf of the appellant/ State is that the vehicles which were seized, were liable for confiscation and a conscious Page No.# 3/6 decision was taken to initiate the confiscation proceeding for which necessary intimation was given to the respondent No.1. In that event, the learned Single Judge ought not to have released the vehicle as it would frustrate the very purpose for enacting the necessary provision in the Forest Regulation of Assam for seizing and confiscating vehicles which are alleged to be used for transporting forest goods or for felling trees or for committing any other offences under the Forest Regulation. While defending the order, Mr. Konwar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 has submitted that 1(one) vehicle was seized from a road which is claimed to be part of Arunachal Pradesh territory. The road has been used for transportation since times immemorial. He has further submitted that the other vehicles of respondent No.1 were seized by the Assam Forest Police from the premises of the Office of respondent No.1, falling exclusively under the territorial jurisdiction of Arunachal Pradesh, which contention is supported by an affidavit by the State of Arunachal Pradesh that the place from where the second recovery/seizure was made lies specifically within the territorial jurisdiction of Arunachal Pradesh. We have examined the seizure lists. One place from where one vehicle has been recovered/seized is a road, about which there is a dispute whether it is being used for transportation by the people of Arunachal Pradesh. The other place from where the seizure has been made falls in Arunachal Pradesh but the claim of the appellant/ State of Assam is that the geo-coordinates indicate that it falls in the territory of Assam. It appears that the learned Single Judge, because of such Page No.# 4/6 dispute having been raised at the time of hearing of the above-noted writ petition, directed for the release of the seized vehicles on the Zimma nama of respondent No.1. However, looking at the impugned order, we find that no specifics of the vehicles seized have been noted in the order, making it absolutely vague whether 1(one) vehicle, which was seized from the road or all the vehicles belonging to respondent No.1, were to be released. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that such an order, which does not specify as to how many seized vehicles have to be released, would make it difficult to be executed. That apart, we find that it was not a humongous task for the learned Single Judge to have decided the issue whether the second tranche of seizure was from Arunachal Pradesh or from Assam. The other noticeable aspect of the impugned order is that such release has been directed after the confiscation notice has been issued to the respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge, in our estimation, ought to have asked for the stage of the confiscation proceeding with respect to the vehicle/vehicles. For these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that it would be more appropriate to stay the operation of the impugned order, if the vehicles have already not been released. We also intend to direct for placing the said writ petition before the learned Single Judge with a request to him to decide the issue finally within a period of 4(four) weeks. We have said so for the reason that the Page No.# 5/6 vehicles are said to be hypothecated and the respondent No.1 has not been able to pay the bank loan on such vehicles. That apart, we have also found that the appellant/State of Assam, for executing the interim order, insists for an affidavit in the Zimma nama that even if the vehicles are released to respondent No.1, it shall not be plied on roads or used for any purpose, which condition, in our estimation, is very onerous, especially after the direction of release of the vehicles. The law with respect to release per-se is very clear. Perishable commodities have to be released unless confiscated. Vehicles or any other items used for purloining of forest produce can be released only with a caveat that it shall be produced before the authorities as and when required. Normally when a confiscation proceeding is afoot, seized vehicles ought not to be released; the primary reason being that there is a time limit provided for concluding the confiscation proceeding and various forums are available to the aggrieved party after the confiscation order is passed or the designated authority refuses to direct for confiscation of the vehicle. Apart from this, the other fact which we have noticed is that the learned Single Judge though has given territorial dispute between the 2(two) States as the reason for directing for release of the vehicle as an interim measure, but has done so without directing for furnishing of any bank guarantee or some other condition, making it absolutely open- ended perhaps difficult for the vehicles to be retrieved when it would be required for the purposes of confiscation or prosecution. Considering these aspects of the matter, we deem it Page No.# 6/6 appropriate to stay the operation of the impugned interim order with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the afore-noted writ petition finally within a period of 4(four) weeks, to be counted from the date when the same is placed before the learned Single Judge for necessary orders. At this stage, we have also been informed that the said writ petition is fixed before the learned Single Judge on 13.11.2025. It would be open for the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 to mention the case before the learned Single Judge for an early hearing. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal stands disposed off. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant