ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 21.7.2001 of the Authorised Officer-cum-DFO., Dhanbad directing to confiscate the truck bearing Registration No. BR20B-4829 belonging to the petitioner, the order dated 27.8.2004 passed by the Collector, Dhanbad, dismissing the confiscating appeal filed by the petitioner and also the order dated 16.2.2005, i.e. the order of Revisional Authority who rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
3. It appears that on 24.7.1998, in front of a line hotel at Kandra within Gobindpur P.S. Dhanbad a Truck bearing registration No. BR20B-4829 loaded with Kendu leaves was seized by the Police on the ground that in the seized Truck, without any valid license kendu leaves were being transported in violation of Section 5 of Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973 punishable under Section 16 of the said Act. Thereafter, a confiscation proceeding was initiated and then by Annexure-2, the truck in question was confiscated by the authorized officer-cum-DFO by order dated 21.7.2001. This order of the DFO was affirmed in appeal and in revision also by rejecting the plea of the petitioner.
4. Before the concerned Authorities the petitioner had taken the same plea, which has been taken before this Court in this writ petition.
5. The main ground for challenge of the aforesaid orders as advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lady and registered owner of the Truck in question, which is a commercial vehicle and she plies her truck on hire. The driver of the truck takes the truck for transporting different articles to different destination as per the direction of the persons who takes the truck on hire. She had no knowledge at all that her truck was being used for the illegal trade of Kendu leaves and thereby committing forest offences, therefore the confiscation of her commercial vehicle was bad and illegal in view of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) 1990, which speaks as follows:
No order of confiscation under Sub-section (3) of nay tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article (the than forest produce seized) shall be made referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) proved to the satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, arms, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence.
6. From the impugned order of three different authorities, I find that they all have rejected the plea of the petitioner of her being innocent on the ground that she had not taken any special case and action to keep a watch that her Truck may not be used for any illegal purpose and, therefore, she being the registered owner of the vehicle can very well be responsible for the action of her employee/driver of the truck who was found engaged in the Illegal trade of Kendu leaves by transporting Kendu leaves on the truck of the petitioner.
7. Considering the argument advanced by the parties and after carefully going through the impugned orders, in my view, the reasons assigned by the three authorities for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner are fully valid and justified and no interference of this Court is called for only on the ground that the petitioner is a lady.
Consequently, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.