2026:JHHC:25276 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 304 of 2026 ----- Kamlesh Kumar son of Rajnath Ram, resident of Village CheteKahuaa, PO & PS Ramkanda, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, PO & PS Garhwa, District Garhwa. 4. The Authorised Officer Cum Divisional Forest Officer, Garhwa, South Divisional Forest, PO & PS Garhwa, District Garhwa (Jharkhand). … … Respondents ---- CORAM: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, AC to SC(L&C) I ---- 08/20.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing of the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure-7) passed in Revision Case No.09 of 2024, whereby and whereunder the Revisional Authority has been pleased to dismiss the Revision Application preferred by this petitioner in the most mechanical manner. (b) For quashing the order dated 21.12.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in Confiscation Appeal Case No.52 of 2020-21 whereby the respondent No.3 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. (c) For quashing of the order dated 26.12.2020 (Anneure-3) passed in Confiscation Case No.29 of 2020 whereby the respondent No.4 has been pleased to confiscate the vehicle (pick-up van) of the petitioner bearing registration No. JH-03R/5179 without considering the written statement of the petitioner in the said proceeding. (d) For direction upon the respondents to immediately release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. JH-03R/5179 2026:JHHC:25276 -: 2 :- (Pick up Van) as the same was never involved in transporting any forest produce and further it is an admitted case of the respondents that Gamhar woods loaded in the vehicle in question is of a meagre value of 29,000/- only and for that purpose vehicle of lakhs of rupees has been confiscated. (e) For holding and declaring that no releasing the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner is completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the pick-up van bearing registration No. JH-03R-5179 which was being plied by the driver, Shabbir Ahmad. On 30.06.2020, the vehicle along with the driver was apprehended by the forester loaded with 83 pieces of Gamhar Wood Boards (Patra). A Proceeding was initiated under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1929 and Bihar Amendment 1989. The driver has stated that he was transporting the household articles along with some Gamhar Wood Board from the agricultural land of the petitioner. He was travelling to Chainpur and in between the vehicle was apprehended and handed over to the Forest Department. A confiscation case being Confiscation Case No.29 of 2020 was initiated. The vehicle alongwith 83 pieces of gamhar wood board (Patra), stepney and jack of the vehicle were confiscated under Section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment 1989). Aggrieved by the order of confiscation, petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was registered as Confiscation Appeal No.52 of 2020-21. The Confiscation Appeal was dismissed by an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.3. Petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1431 of 2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2024 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach before the Revisional Authority. The petitioner, thereafter preferred a revision being Confiscation Revision Petition No.09 of 2024, which was also dismissed by an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Revisional Authority. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the driver of the vehicle was carrying Gamhar Wood boards, which were cut from the private land of the petitioner and, therefore, no forest offence is made out. He submits that Mukhiya of the village had also given a letter saying that Gamhar Tree had fallen due to thunderstorm. 2026:JHHC:25276 -: 3 :- He also submits that the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the petitioner has also deposited the settlement amount of Rs.4,000/-. Learned counsel further submits that all the three authorities have failed to appreciate that no offence under the Forest Act is made out as the petitioner or the driver was not carrying any forest produce as defined in Section 2(4) of the Forest Act. He contends that no where in the entire confiscation proceeding, it has been alleged that woods were brought from forest or the same were found inside the forest area. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that all the three authorities have appreciated the facts and have come to a conclusion that the petitioner was transporting Gamhar wood planks in the pickup van bearing registration No. JH03R-5179 from his raiyati land for personal use, however, permit from the competent authority was not obtained for this transportation, which violated the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. He submits that the vehicle of the petitioner along with the gamhar wood planks have rightly been confiscated and both the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have rightly dismissed the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that the vehicle along with the wood planks have been confiscated by the Confiscating Authority, whereafter the Appeal and the Revision preferred by the petitioner have also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority respectively. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not act as a Court of appeal over the findings, more so, of facts recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. The High Court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate Courts is purported to be based. Such a writ jurisdiction may be invokved in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basamma and Another versus Goparappa and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1342 at paragraph 12 has observed as under: - “12. At the outset, it would be apposite to briefly recapitulate the settled principles of law governing 2026:JHHC:25276 -: 4 :- the exercise of extraordinary and certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is trite law that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal over findings, more so, of facts recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. The High Court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate Courts is purported to be based. Such a writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality.” 7. In the case of Basamma and Another (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also considered and taken note of various earlier pronouncements on the aforesaid principle. 8. In the present case, neither the petitioner has brought anything on record to show that there is any error of law nor from the records it transpires that there is any error of law. Further, it is an admitted fact that the woods were being transported without any permit from the Forest Department. Thus, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to warrant any interference with the impugned orders passed by the Confiscating Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) Ranchi Dated 20th August, 2026 Kumar/Cp-02 Uploaded on 28.08.2026