Orissa High Court
WP(C)/9374/2017 on 18 January, 2021
W.P.(C) No.9374 of 2017
04. 18.01.2021 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken
up through Video Conferencing.
Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State-petitioners.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the
judgment and order dated 17.11.216 (Annexure-4)
passed by learned District Judge, Rayagada in FAO No.4
of 2016, whereby he allowed the appeal in part with a
direction to the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant
Conservator of Forests, Rayagada Forest Division to
release the seized TATA Truck bearing Registration No.AP
16 TC 4188 in favour of the opposite party as per law by
imposing fine as would deem fit and proper.
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-petitioners submits that vehicle in
question, i.e. TATA Truck bearing Registration No. AP 16
TC 4188 was seized by the Range Staff of Gunupur Forest
Range on 28.07.2015 at 3.30 P.M. being loaded with
'Gohira' logs. On suspicion, the Range Staff checked the
vehicle thoroughly and found that 37 Nos.(287.60 cft.) of
'Gohira' logs were loaded on the truck. On being asked
the driver of the vehicle could not produce any Timber
Transit Permit or authentic documents for transportation
of the said 'Gohira' logs. As such, forest offence report
was submitted and Confiscation Case No.OR 60 of 2015-
16 was registered. The driver was arrested and forwarded
to the court of learned S.D.J.M.,Gunupur for trial. On
completion of the inquiry in the confiscation proceeding,
the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of
2
Forests, Rayagada Forest Division, Rayagada-petitioner
no.2 directed confiscation of the vehicle in question vide
his order dated 30.05.2016. Assailing the same, the
opposite party preferred FAO No.4 of 2016 and the
impugned order Annexure-4 has been passed.
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-petitioners submits that when
learned District Judge on analysis of the matter on record
came to a categorical conclusion that a forest offence is
made out as against the opposite party and the vehicle in
question was involved in the said forest offence, learned
District Judge ought not have disturbed the finding with
regard to confiscation of the vehicle. Instead, taking a
lenient view he directed the Authorized Officer-cum-
Assistant Conservator of Forests, Rayagada Forest
Division, Rayagada to release the vehicle by realizing fine
to his satisfaction. Such an order is without jurisdiction.
When learned District Judge has found that the vehicle in
question was involved in the forest offence, he had no
other option than to confirm the order of the Authorized
Officer in confiscation proceeding. He, therefore, prays for
setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4.
He, however, does not dispute the ratio decided in
the case of Gopinath Sahoo -v- State of Orissa and
others; reported in 1994(I) OLR-276 wherein it is held
that in a confiscation proceeding, the Authorized Officer
can also release the vehicle in question by imposing and
realizing suitable amount of fine.
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State-petitioners and perused the
3
materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the
vehicle in question was involved in forest offence and a
direction was made for confiscation of the same. However,
learned District Judge, Rayagada modified the said order
by directing the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant
Conservator of Forests, Rayagada Forest Division,
Rayagada to release the vehicle by imposing suitable fine.
In view of the ratio decided in the case of Gopinath
Sahoo (supra), I find that learned District Judge was well
within his jurisdiction to modify the order of confiscation
by imposing fine. As such, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the writ petition in exercise of power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from
the website of this Court shall be treated at par with
certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court's
Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
................................
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
