UKHC010039832026 2026:UHC:5531 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/473/2026 Pushkar Singh ……..Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand ……Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Piyush Sammal and Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the confiscation order dated 17.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2 under Section 52A(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand Amendment) Act, 2001, in Misc. Case (Year-2023), whereby the petitioner's vehicle bearing registration no. UK-04-CB-9734 was confiscated in favour of the State. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the appellate order dated 20.05.2024 passed by respondent no.3 in Appeal No. 213 of 2023-24 affirming the confiscation order. A consequential direction has also been sought commanding the respondents to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the registered owner of the commercial truck UKHC010039832026 2026:UHC:5531 bearing registration no. UK-04-CB-9734, which constitutes his sole source of livelihood; that, the vehicle had been entrusted to one Ravindra Lal Sah, the driver's name, in August, 2023 for lawful commercial operations; that, on 22.11.2023, the forest authorities seized the vehicle alleging illegal transportation of forest produce, namely resin; that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was neither present at the spot nor travelling in the vehicle; that, a criminal proceeding, being Range Case No. 4 of 2023-24, has been instituted against the driver and another person, which is still pending consideration before the competent court. 5. He would further submit that the petitioner had earlier filed an affidavit dated 29.11.2023 solely in support of an application under Section 53 of the Act seeking interim release of the vehicle, however, while deciding the confiscation proceedings under Section 52A of the Act, the Authorized Officer mechanically relied upon the said affidavit as if it were a conclusive admission of liability and failed to consider the specific defence raised by the petitioner under Section 52A(5) of the Act; that, the appellate authority has also affirmed the confiscation order without examining these legal infirmities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that during the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner categorically pleaded that the vehicle had been entrusted to the driver for lawful use; that, he had neither knowledge of nor consented to the alleged illegal transportation; that, he was not present at the place of occurrence; that, despite these specific pleadings, the Authorized Officer, by order dated 17.02.2024, confiscated the vehicle primarily on the basis of the UKHC010039832026 2026:UHC:5531 affidavit filed for interim custody and by drawing conjectural inferences regarding the alleged construction of a concealed cabin in the vehicle. 7. He would further contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 52A(5) of the Act have not been complied with; that, the statutory scheme mandates that before ordering confiscation, the competent authority must record a clear finding that the owner had knowledge of or connived in the commission of the forest offence, or had failed to exercise due care and precaution to prevent such misuse of the vehicle; that, no such independent or cogent finding has been recorded in the impugned order. 8. It is further submitted that the affidavit dated 29.11.2023 was filed only for the limited purpose of obtaining interim custody of the vehicle under Section 53 of the Act, even prior to the issuance of notice in the confiscation proceedings; that, no statement of the petitioner was subsequently recorded, nor was any independent evidence collected by the Authorized Officer to establish the petitioner's knowledge or complicity in the alleged offence, therefore, treating the said affidavit as a substantive admission in the confiscation proceedings is legally impermissible. 9. Learned counsel would further submit that the criminal liability, if any, is presently the subject matter of adjudication in Range Case No. 4 of 2023- 24 against the driver and another accused; that, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and there is no material demonstrating his involvement in the alleged offence, It is, therefore, contended that confiscation of a high-value commercial vehicle, which is the sole UKHC010039832026 2026:UHC:5531 means of livelihood of the petitioner, is arbitrary, disproportionate and unsustainable in law. 10. 10. Per contra, learned State Counsel would vehemently oppose the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish that the alleged forest offence was committed without his knowledge or without the knowledge of his servant or agent; that, the confiscation proceedings under Section 52A of the Act are independent quasi-judicial proceedings, distinct from the criminal prosecution pending before the competent criminal court, and the pendency of the criminal proceedings does not preclude confiscation under the statutory scheme. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the impugned confiscation order shows that the Authorized Officer has mainly relied upon the affidavit filed by the petitioner with his application under Section 53 of the Act for interim release of the vehicle. No independent finding has been recorded that the petitioner had knowledge of, connived in, or failed to take reasonable care to prevent the alleged illegal transportation of forest produce. The defence raised by the petitioner under Section 52A(5) of the Act has also not been properly considered. 13. The confiscation of property, being a serious civil consequence, must strictly conform to the statutory safeguards provided under the Act. Before directing confiscation, the competent authority is required to record a clear and reasoned finding regarding the owner's knowledge, connivance, or failure to exercise due care. In the absence of such findings, the UKHC010039832026 2026:UHC:5531 confiscation order cannot be sustained. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 has emphasized that valuable vehicles should not be allowed to remain idle for long periods in official custody, resulting in their deterioration, and that appropriate orders for their release should ordinarily be passed on suitable terms. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned confiscation order dated 17.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2 and the appellate order dated 20.05.2024 passed by respondent no.3 cannot be sustained in law and are accordingly set aside. 16. The respondents/authority concerned are directed to release the vehicle bearing registration no. UK-04-CB- 9734 in favour of the petitioner, subject to such terms and conditions, including furnishing of adequate security or bond, as the competent authority may deem appropriate to ensure its production as and when required in connection with the pending proceedings. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 07.07.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e 430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e 68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0 , cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.08 16:31:34 +05'30'