1 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. Form J(2) Sl.No.24 Sc In the High Court at Calcutta In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy WPA 1768 OF 2026 Irfan Khan Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Himanshu De, Sr. Adv. (VC) Mr. Sourav Ganguly, Adv. Mr. Navanil De, Adv. Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Subhrajit Dey, Adv. Mr. Shoumilyo Majumder, Adv. Ms. Rishita Chakraborty, Adv. For the Respondent State : Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP Mr. Arijit Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Bibek Tarafder, Adv. Heard on : August 19, 2026 Judgment on : August 19, 2026 [In Court] Aniruddha Roy, J. : 1. On the prayer of Mr. Himanshu De, learned Senior Advocate (VC) for the petitioner, leave is granted to file supplementary affidavit. 2 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. Supplementary affidavit, filed in Court today, is taken on record. Copy has been served. Facts : 2. The writ petitioner claims to be the owner of a particular vehicle. While carrying the forest consignment through Buxa Dooars forest, the vehicle of the petitioner along with consignment was confiscated. 3. The jurisdictional authorized officer by its order dated January 14, 2026 at page 5 to the supplementary affidavit directed confiscation of the vehicle along with the seized articles as mentioned in the Seizure List. 4. On July 2, 2026 the petitioner submitted an application before the authorized officer for consideration of the case of the petitioner for release of the seized vehicle along with the articles, Annexure-P4 at page 30 to the writ petition. The said application is still pending. 5. Impugning the said order of confiscation dated January 14, 2026 and the action of the authorized officer for not considering the application dated July 2, 2026 the instant writ petition has been filed. Submission : 6. Mr. Himanshu De, learned Senior Advocate (VC) appearing for the writ petitioner referring to the said impugned order for confiscation dated January 14, 2026 (hereinafter, impugned confiscation order) 3 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. submits that, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before taking the decision for confiscation. 7. He further submits that, the petitioner is a resident of Uttar Pradesh and the registration number of the seized vehicle would demonstrate that the vehicle was registered at Uttar Pradesh, still the notice required to be served upon the vehicle owner according to law, has not been served. 8. The petitioner when came to learn about this seizure and the impugned confiscation order, immediately submitted the said representation dated July 2, 2026 and the authorized officer failed and neglected to consider the same. Hence, this writ petition. 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. De further submits that, there is a clear breach of natural justice and the exercise of power by the authorized officer is not in accordance with law, as would be apparent from the impugned confiscation order. He submits this is a fit case where the Writ Court should intervene and set aside the impugned confiscation order and direct the authorized officer to consider the application submitted by the petitioner after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support, he has relied upon two decisions : I. In the matter of : Shankarlal –vs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at (2005) 12 SCC282; and 4 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. II. In the matter of : Nilratan Panda & Anr. –vs.- The State of West Bengal & Anr. passed in CRR 2725 of 2021 with CRAN 1 of 2022 with CRAN 2 of 2022 on December 14, 2022. 10. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that, the impugned confiscation order is appealable under Section 59-D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter, the Forest Act). 11. Referring to the impugned confiscation order specifically from paragraphs 6 and 7 thereunder, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that, adequate notice and public notice through newspaper publication had been caused in accordance with law and even then the petitioner did not appear before the authorized officer, while hearing had taken place. The impugned confiscation order is well versed and well reasoned order. 12. While passing the impugned confiscation order, the authorized officer had considered all the relevant facts and materials before it and after assigning reasons had passed the same. The impugned order for confiscation is otherwise lawful, just and proper and should not be interfered with. 13. He further submits that, if the petitioner seeks to challenge the said impugned confiscation order, the challenge shall lie before the appellate authority, as provided under the statute. Decision : 5 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. 14. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court from the impugned confiscation order that, statements are there showing adequate notice upon the petitioner and adequate notice through publication in the newspapers, at least in three. 15. Prima facie, it appears that, the petitioner did not appear and attend the hearing, though notice had been served and/or issued. However, whether the notices had been issued or not or whether these notices were issued in conformity with the statutory provisions, as the petitioner has denied such notices, unless a fact finding inquiry is made no conclusive decision can be arrived at. 16. The law is well settled. Existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to entertain a writ petition by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but it is a self-imposed restriction. If a Writ Court finds that some factual inquiry is required on the issues and cross-issues which are required to be adjudicated upon, the Writ Court refrains from exercising its high prerogative Writ jurisdiction. The appellate authority under the statute has jurisdiction and authority to go into and adjudicate the factual issues. In such situation, as in the instant case, this Court is of the considered and firm view not to exercise its Writ jurisdiction. 17. In the matter of : Shankarlal (supra) the impugned order on the face of it showed no opportunity of hearing was granted and the 6 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. document relied upon was not produced before the petitioner. It is not such a case here, as the impugned confiscation order shows notices were published and despite such notices, the petitioner chose not to be represented during the hearing before the authorized officer. Hence, this leads to conduct a fact finding inquiry first and accordingly, the ratio of the said judgment will not apply in the facts and situation of this case. 18. In the matter of : Nilratan Panda & Anr. (supra) a criminal revision petition was entertained and an interim custody was granted. The ratio would not apply in the facts of this case. 19. In view of the above, petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer the statutory appeal within a period of four weeks from date. In the event, such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional appellate authority after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall deal with and dispose it off by passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. 20. It is made clear that, this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge whatever points he wishes to urge by relying upon whatever records and documents he wishes to rely upon before the jurisdictional appellate authority. 7 WPA 1768 of 2026 A.Roy, J. 21. It is further made clear that, this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner, if the petitioner is found not eligible to receive any relief in the appeal in accordance with law. 22. Inasmuch as, the appellate authority shall not be influenced by the observation, if any, made by this Court and shall dispose of the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law. 23. Till the appeal is disposed of finally, no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the seized vehicle and the articles. 24. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in this writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 25. With the above observations and directions the writ petition, WPA 1768 of 2026 stands disposed of without any order as to costs. 26. Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly obtained from the official website of this Court. 27. Photostat certified of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously. (Aniruddha Roy, J.)