Uttarakhand High Court
Pushkar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 7 July, 2026
UKHC010039832026
2026:UHC:5531
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
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. 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.
MAMTA (Alok Mahra, J.)
07.07.2026
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’
