The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal filed against the order passed by the original authority in which the license of the petitioner’s mill was canceled and held that under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990, the competent authority has the power to revoke the license and confiscate timber if the licensee fails to account for unexplained wood, and such action can proceed even if a criminal case is pending against the licensee for illegal transportation of wood without valid documents.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, the proprietor of M/s Amar Saw Mill and in the course of checking, two trucks were intercepted by the forest guards and in the course of verification, it was found that both the trucks were loaded with logs of wood in excess of the permitted limit of permit and both the trucks were seized and a criminal case was instituted and one confiscation case was also initiated. The competent authority of the forest authority issued notice upon the petitioner as to why the penal action be not taken in the light of provision as contained under section 7(5)(C) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 and respondent directed for inspection of petitioner’s mill which was carried out in absence of the petitioner and on the basis of the inspection report, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner filed this appeal against the order passed by the original authority.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that that for the alleged illegality two proceedings were initiated i.e., one under the penal offence by instituting a criminal case and another for confiscation. It is further contended that the respondent authority directed for inspection of the Saw Mill Store of the petitioner, which was carried out but such inspection was made in his absence and the order was highly unwarranted since it was passed without taking into consideration the fact that the criminal prosecution was pending on the date when the order was passed by the confiscating authority for confiscation.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that there is no nexus of pendency of criminal prosecution so far it relates to the confiscation proceeding since both the proceedings are on two different parameters and are to proceed for different consequences. It is further contended that merely because the criminal prosecution was pending it cannot be said that the authority had no jurisdiction to initiate the confiscation proceeding.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that it appears from the provision of Section 5(C) of the Act, 1990 wherein it has been provided that the licensee has, in the premises of the saw mill or saw pit-wood which he is not able to account for satisfactorily and consequently which is liable for confiscation under Section 10, then without prejudice to any other penalty to which licensee may be liable under this Act, the licensing officer may, after giving the licensee an opportunity of showing cause, revoke, or suspend the license and forfeit the sum, if any, or any portion thereof deposited as security for the due performance of the conditions subject to which the license has been granted and the power of revocation or suspension of the license is vested upon the competent authority that is to be taken after providing an opportunity of showing cause to the concerned licensee.
The court further observed that the vehicle in question was intercepted by forest guards wherein the logs of wood were found over the vehicle but when demanded the valid documents of the logs of wood was not produced by the petitioner and hence, both the penal action was decided to be taken; one by instituting a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and another confiscation proceeding.
The court held that under the Bihar Saw Mills Act, 1990 the authority has been conferred with the power to deal with licenses and if it is found that the conduct of the licensee is contrary to the terms and conditions of the license, then it may be cancelled and the case herein, since, the writ petitioner has been found to be in illegal transpiration of logs of wood without valid challans/permit and merely because the criminal case is pending the authority concerned cannot be restrained from exercising the power for confiscation of logs of wood and cancellation of license.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: M/s Amar Saw Mill vs. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 205 of 2011
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shashank Shekhar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
