2025:JHHC:19245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 1829 of 2025 ----- Smt. Gita Choudhary, W/o Late Jitendra Kumar Choudhary, R/o Ambika Bhawan, Babapath, Hurhuru, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh-825301 … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary having its office at Project Building P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, Dist.-Ranchi 2. The Revision Authority-Cum-Principal Secretary, Forest Enviornment and Climate Change Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.S.-Doranda, P.O.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi-834002 3. The Deputy Commssioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 4. The Competent Authority-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, West Forest Division, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist.-Hazaribagh … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Viveka Nand Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, AC to AG ----- Oral Order 03 / Dated : 15.07.2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order of confiscation of the bus under Section 52(B) of the Indian Forest Act in connection with Offence Report G(F) No. 24 of 2016, P.S. Barhi under Section 33(b), 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The order of confiscation has been affirmed in appeal and revision against which the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is a passenger bus and the petitioner is widow of Late Jitendra Kumar Choudhary, owner of the said bus, and she was not an accused in the said forest case. The case was initially registered against unknown and later on, the prosecution report was submitted against the driver and the husband of the petitioner, but the petitioner was not an accused in the said case. It is further submitted that the said seizure was not made from the bus in any forest area but was seized from Barhi Chowk and the said bus is the only means of livelihood of the petitioner, who is a house wife and had no knowledge about the coal 2025:JHHC:19245 2 being transported from the said bus. It is also submitted that in a passenger bus, it is not feasible that much quantity of coal could have been transported. It is also submitted that the hard coke will not come within the meaning of forest produce. 3. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order. 4. I find much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle in question is a passenger bus which is not normally used for transportation of coal. The place of seizure is not a forest area and she is the widow of the owner of the bus who died some time after. Under the circumstance, the order of confiscation of the said bus is set aside. This writ petition stands allowed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra