2025:CGHC:14270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 257 of 2020 1 - Bandhulal Chandrakar S/o Shri Tenuram Chandrakar Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Nawagaon Baghbahara, Post Office- Tendukana, Tehsil- Baghbahara, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector/district Magistrate, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Lal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order (Annexure P/1 & P/2) passed by the Courts below and further be pleased to grant the above mentioned vehicle on Supurtnama to the petitioner, with or without condition (s), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application for Supurdnama of the vehicle (motorcycle Bajaj Vikrant) bearing registration No. C.G.06 GG-610 was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, as the vehicle of the petitioner was seized in connection with Crime No.4/2020 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 47A of the C.G. Excise Act registered at Police Station Baghbahara. He would further submit that the learned Court below rejected the application without assigning sufficient reasons. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Marhas, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an order of confiscation has already been passed on 25.03.2021 and the said order has been challenged by the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 63 of 2021. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the order of confiscation has already been passed and the petitioner has challenged the very order in Cr.M.P. No. 63/2021, I am not inclined to keep this matter pending. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha