ORDER
Tapen Sen, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradip Modi, learned G.P. I for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the following Orders :--(1) Order dated 14.09.2001 (Annexure 5) passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa, North Division, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case No. 11 of 2001 by reason whereof he confiscated the truck belonging to the petitioner bearing No. WB-33-2547; (2) Order dated 22.03.2002 (Annexure 6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharswan by which, upon an appeal having been preferred by the petitioner, he confirmed the order of the Confiscating Authority passed on 14.09.2001 and accordingly dismissed the appeal; and (3) the Order dated 26/30.09.2002 (Annexure-7) passed by the Secretary-cum-Revisional Authority, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is the owner of the aforementioned registered truck and it was seized by the Beat Officer under the Chandil Range on 19.06.2001.
4. The only point argued by Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is nothing on record to show that the area from where the alleged illegal mining/activity is said to have been carried out was a protected forest inasmuch as neither any notification nor any order was produced by the prosecutors before the aforementioned authorities in support of their contention that the area was a protected forest.
5. In this context, it is therefore necessary to look into the findings of all the three authorities mentioned above. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chaibasa, while passing the first impugned order confiscating the truck, has clearly mentioned that the offenders had cleared forests and trees for making road in this Forest Area in Plot No. 319 of Chandudih Protected Forest which is a notified Forest land. He has further stated that the offenders had felled trees and cut bushes before breaking the forest land for mining in contraband stones. It was further found that pits had been dug over an area of 1 chain x 1 chain in Chandudih Protected Forest on the said plot Nos. 319 and 900 c.ft. stone had been excavated from the pits whereafter they were stored near the same. In addition to the aforementioned activity, it was also found that about 25 Sal stumps had been found to have been uprooted near the dug out pits. The Divisional Forest Officer was therefore of the opinion that there has been degradation of environment and the damage to the environment was irreparable.
6. Upon an appeal having been preferred by the petitioner, the appellate authority confirmed the order of the Divisional Forest Officer and while summing up his order, he recorded that 'that the truck was seized in the protected forest zone which has not been denied by the appellant.'
7. The Revisional Authority also confirmed both the aforementioned two orders by his order dated 26/30.09.2002.
8. After the petitioner has undertaken three rounds of litigations, one of which was before the appellate Court, where he could not deny the fact that the area fell within the protected, forest zone, it is not at all open for the learned counsel for the petitioner to urge this point before this Court nor will it be proper for this Court to upset this finding in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner insofar as present impugned orders are concerned.
10. After the order was dictated, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave of this Court to take recourse to the remedy available under Section 68 of the Bihar Amendment to the Indian Forest Act. It goes without saying that the petitioner has the liberty to take recourse to the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and with special reference to the Bihar Amendment incorporating Section 68 therein.