1 2025:CGHC:55546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5950 of 2025 • Vijay Kashyap, S/o Devi Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Pondi, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O.), Upvan Mandal, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Forest Officer, Upvan Mandal, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4. Satya Prakash Kashyap, S/o Anurudhlal Kashyap, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Nayapara Karra, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 5. Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Nawapara Karra, Tehsil Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Deputy G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash notice dated 10.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2 being without jurisdiction and contrary to law, as the petitioner is neither the owner nor in DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 possession of the seized vehicle and the permit does not mention in his name. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle allegedly involved in commission of the forest offence is pending consideration. However, even after submission of reply, the same has not been concluded, petitioner is being called time and again only to harass him, and therefore, direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to pass an order in the proceedings of the confiscation, at the earliest within specified time. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that documents filed along with writ petition, it appears that respondent No.2, after initiating the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle allegedly (CG-07-BT-0210) involved is proceedings with the case following due process of law. Notices have been issued to the petitioner, reply is submitted and his statement is recorded on 06.08.2025. She contended that the proceedings will be concluded by following due process of law. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record would show that show cause notice issued to the petitioner was dated 10.07.2025. petitioner, thereafter submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 16.07.2025, thereafter petitioner was again issued notice for date fix for hearing of the case on 06.08.2025 and on that date, statement of the petitioner was recorded. No document has been filed to show, as to what is the stage of proceedings after 06.08.2025. 6. Be that as it may, considering the fact that proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 for confiscation of the vehicle and as submitted by the 3 counsel for the petitioner, it is still pending consideration, without entering into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to conclude the proceedings following due process of law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge