1 WPCR No.488 of 2025 2025:CGHC:45184-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 488 of 2025 Aalim Sai S/o Mohd. Firoz Shah Aged About 21 Years Caste- Muslim, R/o Village- Murgu, P.S.- Sisai, District- Gumla (Jharkhand) (Father Name Wrongly Mention In Some Places Sai Instead Of Shah) Correct Is Shah. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The Collector And District Magistrate Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2The Superintendent Of Police Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 3 The Station House Officer Police Station, Lodam, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 4 The Chief Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/09/2025 1. Heard, Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. G.A. for the State. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.04 18:10:56 +0530 2 WPCR No.488 of 2025 2. The present WPCR has been filled for following reliefs : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-1 in Case No. aside/quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent no. 202408030100025104 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to release the seized Pick-Up bearing registration no. petitioner. J.H.-01-FF-2481 to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 to take disciplinary and panel action against the respondent no. 1 for his illegal act in confiscating the seized vehicle without drawing any lawful proceedings, within 15 days from the date of seizure of the vehicle, in accordance with law. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle Pick-Up bearing registration no. J.H.-01-FF-2481. According to the petitioner, on 07.08.2024, the aforesaid Pick-Up vehicle of petitioner and his mobile have been seized by the Lodam, Police of Police Station, Jashpur in connection with crime no. 39/2024 registered at Police 3 WPCR No.488 of 2025 Station, Jashpur for the offence punishable under Section 4, 6, 10 of Chhattisgarh Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, 2004 and Section 11 of Cruelty to Animal Act against the petitioner and co- accused Lal Khan. He further submits that the petitioner filed an application for grant of interim custody/ Supurdnama of the seized vehicle and mobile and vide order dated 18.09.2024, the learned C.J.M., Jashpur has partly allowed the application and directed to release the seized mobile to the petitioner, however rejected the application for grant of supurdnama of the seized Pick-Up vehicle by order dated 18.09.2024. He further submits that aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2024, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 397, 399 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur and vide impugned order dated 17.12.2024 the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision. He further submits that the petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No. 644 of 2025 before this Court, challenging the orders of trial Court and Sessions Court and vide order dated 20.02.2025 this Court allowed the petition and directed to grant interim custody of the seized vehicle. He further contended that pursuant to the order of this Court, when the petitioner went to take interim custody of the seized vehicle vide memo dated 10.05.2025, he was informed that the vehicle in question has been ordered for confiscation by the respondent no. 1 by order dated 21.08.2024. He further submits that the information of confiscation of the vehicle has not been 4 WPCR No.488 of 2025 supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was provided and within 15 days from the date of seizure, the respondent no. 1 has passed the impugned order for confiscation of the seized property, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the act of the respondent no. 1 is highly suspicion and objectionable and prays for quashing of the order dated 21.08.2024. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the order of confiscation has been passed under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014 by the District Magistrate. He further submits that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the Session Court under Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. For ready reference Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014 is quoted herein below:- 8. Revision before the Session Court against order of the District Magistrate.- Any person aggrieved with the final order passed by the District Magistrate or any result of order, within thirty days of passing of such order may file an application for revision before such Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, Office of the 5 WPCR No.488 of 2025 District Magistrate is situated. Explanation.- The time requisite for obtaining certified copy of order of the District Magistrate shall be excluded while computing period of thirty days referred to in this sub-rule. 7. From bare perusal it is evident that the impugned order has been passed on 21.08.2024 by the Collector/ District Magistrate under Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014, hence the petitioner is having a remedy under the Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014 to question the order passed by Collector/ District Magistrate under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2014. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 9. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 10. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is 6 WPCR No.488 of 2025 reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies as may be available to the petitioner under the Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014, if so desires. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti