Confiscation of vehicles for forest offences stands absent demonstrated illegality, perversity, or infirmity.

The appellants sought release of their tractors and rotavators, seized in connection with Navrangiya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2022 and subject to confiscation proceedings. They claimed to be farmers, said the tractors had been parked about 1.5 kilometres from the forest, and challenged the circumstances and evidentiary basis of the seizure and confiscation.

After the Appellate Authority remanded the matter, the Authorised Officer again ordered confiscation. The appellants’ writ petition was dismissed; the Single Judge directed an expedited auction after valuation by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and permitted the appellants to bid.

The appellants challenged that order in this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s order upholding the confiscation and directing auction suffered from illegality, perversity, or infirmity warranting appellate interference.

2. Whether the appellants’ contention that revision did not lie against an interim order established an infirmity in the order under appeal.

The Court relied on State of Karnataka v. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80, which cautions against a liberal approach to releasing vehicles alleged to have been used in forest offences: release is not automatic and ordinarily should await the conclusion of proceedings, including confiscation; any exceptional interim release requires valid reasons, with a bank guarantee as a minimum condition.

The Court also stated that whether a revision lies against an interim order must be assessed by reference to the nature of the order and the applicable statutory provisions.

The Court considered the appellants’ claims that they were not named in the FIR, that the tractors were parked away from the forest, and that the inspection report contained contradictions. It held that those circumstances, ownership, and agricultural use did not by themselves invalidate confiscation; the relevant question was whether the competent authorities had reached a sustainable finding under the applicable provisions.

Given the Single Judge’s conclusion that the tractors had been involved in illegal activity within the forest area, the Court found no demonstrated illegality or perversity requiring interference. It further considered the auction direction an appropriate response to the risk of deterioration and pilferage, while the appellants’ objection concerning revision did not, without more, dislodge the order.

It left the appellants at liberty to approach the competent authority, which must consider any application on its merits without being prejudiced by observations in either judgment.