Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Guddu Gupta on 22 November, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 825 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(CONSERVATION), SATPUDA BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CIRCLE REWA, VAN
VISHRAM GRIH PARISAR JAYANTI KUNJ, REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, S I D HI , DISTRICT
SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DEPUTY FOREST SIDHI DIVISION OFFICER, SIDHI,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. FOREST CIRCLE/RANGE OFFICER, SIDHI,
CHURAHAT, SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. JANHAVI PANDIT - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
GUDDU GUPTA, S/O SHESHMANI GUPTA, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, POLICE LINE, KOTARKALA, WARD NO.1,
SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI LAL RAJ BAHORAN SINGH CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 11/23/2023
11:00:34 AM
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsels.
2. For the reasons assigned, I.A. No.12015 of 2023 for condonation of delay
is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. Admit.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in allowing the Writ Petition No.1788 of 2023 thereby holding that the
appellate authority should not have exercised suo moto powers under Section
52A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short 'the Act'), the State is in appeal.
5. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge came to the view
that the competent authority under Section 52A of the Act could not have
exercised suo moto powers in a proceeding wherein there was no order of
confiscation. However, the learned Additional Advocate General by placing
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Rajesh
Sharma reported in 2018 (2) M.P.L.J. 193 contends that the words 'order of
confiscation' as used in Section 52A of the Act have to be construed as an
order passed in any confiscation proceedings. Paragraphs 32 and 33 reads as
follows:-
"32. In view of the aforesaid analysis we are of the considered opinion
that the words 'order of confiscation' used in Section 52 A have to be
construed as any order passed in the confiscation proceedings and
that Section 52-A(1) of the Act or section 52-A (2) of the Act, can be
invoked against an order confiscating the vehicle etc. as well as
against an order releasing the same.
33. For the purpose of clarity we delineate the answer given by us to
the reference made by the learned single judge chronologically as
under:
1. the judgment passed in the case of Umashankar Usrete (Supra) is
hereby overruled as no longer a good law.
2. the judgment in the case of Sohanlal Keshari (Supra) is hereby
affirmed and confirmed.
3. it is held that the words 'order of confiscation' used in Section 52-
A(1) as well as Section 52-A(2) would mean and include not just an
order confiscating the forest produce, vehicle and other tools
involved in commission of the forest offence but would also include
an order directing release of the same.
4. that an appeal can be filed under Section 52-A(1) not just against
an order confiscating the vehicle but also against an order
releasing the vehicle etc. as such orders are orders passed in
confiscation proceedings.
5. that the suo motu appellate powers conferred on the Appellate
Authority under section 54-A(2) can be exercised by the Appellate
Authority even against an order directing release of the vehicle
goods etc. by the authorized officer."
6. In view of the said position of law, we are of the view that the order of the
learned Single Judge becomes unsustainable. The question of exercising suo
moto powers under Section 52A of the Act would have to be upheld in view of
the aforesaid judgment of this Court.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 01.02.2023 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1788 of 2023 is set aside. The
writ petition is dismissed.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
taj
