K.D.Varghese vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 5965 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.D.Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

CRP No.181 of 2013                   1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY       2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945

                            CRP NO. 181 OF 2013

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CMA 35/2010 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
                         COURT, ERNAKULAM

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

              K.D.VARGHESE,S/O.DEVASSIA,AGED 59,
              KOORAN HOUSE, MAROTTICHADU, MATTOOR P.O

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
              SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
              SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTSS:

      1       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
              KAKKANADU, PIN 682 030.

      2       DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER
              MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, KADANAD, PIN 683 544.

      3       THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
              CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR - 680 005.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SPL.GP.FORESTS T.P.SAJAN

     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP No.181 of 2013                            2




                                   V.G.ARUN J.
                        -------------------------------------
                              C.R.P. No.181 of 2013
                         ---------------------------------
                     Dated this the 23rd day of February 2024


                                        ORDER

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the

Additional District Court-VI, Ernakulam in CMA No.35/2010

affirming the order of issued by the Divisional Forest Officer,

Malayattoor Division, confiscating the electric motor and the No

Objection Certificate from the saw mill of the petitioner. The

essential facts are as under;

The petitioner is the proprietor of a Small Scale Industrial

unit by name "Three Star Timber Industries". On 23/03/2009, the

Forest Range Officer, Kalady, came over the saw mill and seized

the electric motor as well as the NOC issued to the petitioner for

conducting the saw mill. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed

that the action was taken based on the allegation that, some

identifiable persons had felled a teak wood from the Ever Green

Forest and got it sawn from the petitioner's saw mill on

29/03/2009. The proceedings initiated by the seizure culminated

in an order under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act ('the Act'

for short) confiscating the machinery. This was challenged by the

petitioner before the District Court, resulting the impugned

judgment.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

finding of the court below that mandatory notice under Section 61B

of the Act had been issued to the petitioner is factually incorrect.

For finding that a notice under section 61B of the Act had been

issued, the court below had treated the show cause notice issued

with respect to the NOC seized from the petitioner's saw mill as the

notice under Section 61B of the Act with respect to the machinery.

It is contended that, in the absence of the mandatory notice under

Section 61B of the Act containing essential details with respect to

the allegation and the articles proposed to be confiscated, an order

under Section 61A is unsustainable.

3. Learned Government Pleader contended that the court

below had perused the records and was satisfied that the petitioner

had received the notice issued under Section 61B of the Act and

hence, the contention in that regard is liable to be rejected.

4. I have gone through the trial court records as well as the

original file pertaining to the case handed over by the learned

Government Pleader. It is true that a notice dated 15/06/2009

issued in accordance with Section 61B of the Act, is available in the

original file handed over by the learned Government Pleader. At

the same time, such notice, based on which alone confiscation

could have been effected, is not produced or marked in evidence.

The court below has perused the files and taken note of the notice

under Section 61B of the Act, without even providing a copy of the

notice to the petitioner. At any rate, the seizure having been

effected way back in the year 2009 and the machinery handed over

to the petitioner on interim custody, equity also demand that the

impugned judgment be set aside.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is

allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN Judge dpk