2026:JHHC:25466 --1-- W.P. (C.) No. 1810 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No. 1810 of 2013 ---- 1. Madhusudan Agarwal, son of Late Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, resident of village and PO – Bandwan, PS – Bandwan, District – Purulia (W.B.) 2. Nilay Kumar Agarwal @ Nilay Agarwal, son of Sri Madhusudan Agarwal, resident of village and PO – Bandwan, PS – Bandwan, District – Purulia (W.B.) 3. Niranjan Kumar Agarwal @ Niranjan Agarwal, son of Late Hanuman Prasad Agarwal, resident of At and PO- Chirkunda, PS – Chirkunda, District – Dhanbad .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum 3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. S.L. Agarwal, Advocate :- Ms. Ayushi, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ---- 14/24.08.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jamshedpur in Confiscation Case No.04 of 2008 under Section 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 whereby confiscation of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. WB-37-2790, JH 05V 9526 and JH 05V 9416 have been made. 2026:JHHC:25466 --2-- W.P. (C.) No. 1810 of 2013 The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 20th September, 2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Confiscation Appeal No.116 of 2011-12. 3. Mr. S.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (C.) No.49 of 2010 which was withdrawn by order dated 05.12.2011 on the ground of alternative remedy and thereafter the petitioners have filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. He further submits that although the revisional provisions are there under the said Act, however, this petition is pending before this Court since 2013. He then submits that it will be harsh to dispose of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. On these grounds, he submits that in view of that this Court considering the contradictory findings of learned Deputy Commissioner in the appeal relating to the same FIR can pass the appropriate order. He next submits that the vehicles in question along with two motorcycles have been seized alleging that iron ore and manganese were being carried in the said vehicle and two motorcycles were also moving along with the said vehicles. He also submits that by the impugned order learned Deputy Commissioner has although noted the submission that in the FIR there is nothing to disclose about plot number and khata number of any forest land, however, in one line finding has been given that it was involved in carrying forest articles. He next submits that in the said FIR it was made against five of the vehicles and so far other vehicles are concerned that has been decided by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 13.08.2015 holding that nothing has been proved that any 2026:JHHC:25466 --3-- W.P. (C.) No. 1810 of 2013 minerals and mining being carried in the said vehicles. He next submits that those vehicles were also involved pursuant to the same FIR, however, contradictory findings have been given by the Deputy Commissioner. He next submits that even now the petitioners have been acquitted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Commissioner, Ghatshila in C/3 Case No.28/2008 / Tr. No.183/2017 by judgment dated 13th October, 2017. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer and submits that finding of Deputy Commissioner is there of involvement of said vehicles in the crime and violation of Sections 26 and 33 of Indian Forest Act. 5. On query made by the Court, learned counsel appearing for the State fairly submits that there is no finding with regard to involvement of these two vehicles and the appeal has been dismissed. He also admits the fact that the Deputy Commissioner has passed two contradictory orders. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Confiscation Appeal No.116 of 2011-12 which is the subject matter of this writ petition, it transpires that submission was made that there is no plot number and khata number of any forest land and one line finding has been given that the said truck was involved in carrying forest articles and pleased to dismiss the appeal however, later on the Deputy Commissioner has decided the another appeal being Confiscation Case No.25/2012 & 13 and has given a finding that it has 2026:JHHC:25466 --4-- W.P. (C.) No. 1810 of 2013 not been proved of carrying any minerals mined from the forest and allowed the appeal. 7. In view of the above, it transpires that with regard to the same FIR two contradictory findings have been given by the learned Deputy Commissioner. 8. The order dated 13.08.2015 passed in Confiscation Case No.25/2012 & 13 appears to be reasonable and proper reasoning has been given wherein in the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Confiscation Appeal No.116 of 2011-12 reasoning is not given and in that view of the matter the impugned order dated 20.09.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Confiscation Appeal No.116 of 2011-12 is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.3, who is Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur to pass afresh order in accordance with law. 10. This petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 24.08.2026 Sangam/