Debasish Mohanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11118 Ori

Orissa High Court

Debasish Mohanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                   Signature Not Verified
                                                                   Digitally Signed
                                                                   Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                   Reason: Authentication
                                                                   Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                   Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:04:31




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.P.(C) No.13910 of 2021
         (In the matters of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the
         Constitution of India, 1950).

         Debasish Mohanta                            ....               Petitioner(s)

                                          -versus-

         State of Odisha & Ors.                      ....       Opposite Party(s)

         Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

         For Petitioner (s)           :    Mr. Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv.
                                          -versus-

         For Opp. Party(s)            :              Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA

                     CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                              DATES OF HEARING:- 20.11.2025
                              DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 12.12.2025

      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the legality and

propriety of the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in F.A.O. No. 01 of 2019,

whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the order dated 10.09.2018

passed by the Authorized Officer in O.R. Case No. 114R of 2017-18,

directing confiscation of the seized forest produce and vehicle.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as

follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) On 24.09.2017 at about 8:00 PM, the Forest Range Officer, Rairangpur

Range, received information from reliable sources regarding illegal

transportation of eucalyptus poles from the Kucheibudhi Reserve Forest.

(ii) Acting upon the said information and on the instructions of the Range

Officer, forest staff proceeded towards Kucheibudhi Reserve Forest near

village Champauda, where a TATA ACE bearing Registration No. OR-

11E-8390 was found stationed inside the reserve forest. The vehicle was

loaded with 22 eucalyptus poles, and several persons were present at the

spot.

(iii) Upon interrogation, the persons present disclosed their identities as

Prafulla Mohanta, Chaitanya Mohanta, Chittaranjan Mohanta, Makaru

Mohanta, and the present petitioner Debasish Mohanta. It was alleged

that the petitioner was the driver-cum-owner of the said vehicle.

(iv) The petitioner was called upon to produce documents evidencing lawful

possession and transportation of the timber. As no such documents were

produced, the forest officials seized the eucalyptus poles along with the

vehicle. During seizure, Hammer No. 32 was found marked on the

eucalyptus poles, and the same hammer mark was also noticed on a

paper pasted on the vehicle. The seized articles and the accused persons

were thereafter brought to the Range Office premises for further action.

dated 24.09.2017 was registered, and O.R. Case No. 114R of 2017-18 was

instituted.

(vi) It was alleged that the accused persons had committed offences under

Rules 4, 12 and 14 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Rules, 1980, punishable under Rule 21 thereof, and had also violated

Section 27(1)(b) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 for unauthorized entry into

a Reserve Forest. Proceedings under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act,

1972 were accordingly initiated.

(vii) After seizure, the Forest Range Officer, Rairangpur, prepared the seizure

list and other relevant reports on 24.09.2017, and initiated confiscation

proceedings before the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of

Forests, Rairangpur Division.

(viii) Upon completion of the confiscation proceedings, the Authorized Officer,

by order dated 10.09.2018, directed confiscation of the seized 22

eucalyptus poles as well as the TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration

No. OR-11E-8390 to the Government.

(ix) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned

Additional District Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in F.A.O. No. 01 of

2019. The learned appellate court, by judgment dated 30.11.2019,

dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of confiscation passed by the

Authorized Officer.

(x) Challenging the aforesaid appellate judgment and the underlying

confiscation order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the

present writ petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The petitioner contended that the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant

Conservator of Forests, Rairangpur Division, exceeded his vested

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

jurisdiction while proceeding with the matter. It is submitted that the

order was passed without following the due procedure of law, without

proper consideration of the relevant statutory provisions, and without

examining any witness on behalf of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner further submitted that the matter involves a pure question

of law relating to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted under

Rule 4 of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest

Offence) Rules, 1980. It is contended that once the seizure was effected,

the enquiry was required to be carried out strictly in terms of Rule 4,

which mandates a preliminary enquiry by the Forester, followed by a

regular enquiry by an officer not below the rank of Range Officer, and

thereafter submission of the enquiry report and case record to the

Divisional Forest Officer. The petitioner asserted that the statutory

procedure contemplated under Rule 4 was not adhered to in the present

case, thereby vitiating the subsequent proceedings, including the order

passed under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972.

(iii) The petitioner submitted that during the hearing of the proceeding,

Opposite Party No. 3 did not afford a reasonable opportunity of defence.

It was contended that no witnesses from the petitioner's side were

examined, nor was the petitioner permitted to adduce evidence in

support of his case. Only the official witnesses of the Forest Department

were examined, and based solely on their statements, Opposite Party No.

3 passed the order dated 10.09.2018 in O.R. Case No. 114R of 2017-2018

directing confiscation of the TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.

OR-11E-8390 and the 22 eucalyptus poles under Sections 56 of the Odisha

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Forest Act, 1972. The petitioner asserted that the manner in which the

proceeding was conducted amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity

and was contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as the

statutory framework under the Odisha Forest Act, 1972.

(iv) The petitioner further submitted that the vehicle in question was seized

on 24.09.2017 and has since been lying in the Forest Range Office campus

at Rairangpur. It is submitted that the vehicle has remained in custody for

more than eight years, causing substantial deterioration and hardship to

the petitioner.

(v) The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sukanta

Kumar Jena v. State of Orissa & Another,1 wherein it was held that Rule

4 of the 1980 Rules mandates that the enquiry into a forest offence must

be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Range Officer. It is

submitted that although Opposite Party No. 5 stated in his deposition

that he had conducted the preliminary enquiry, such enquiry, according

to the petitioner, does not satisfy the requirement under Rule 4(2) of the

1980 Rules, which specifically provides that the enquiry must be

undertaken by an officer not below the rank of Range Officer. The

petitioner asserted that this amounts to non-compliance with the

statutory mandate.

(vi) The petitioner further submitted that this Court, while examining similar

issues, has considered the applicability of Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules vis-à-

vis Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. Reliance was placed on the

2012 (1) OLR-229.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

decision in Anatha Bandhu Mondal v. State of Orissa and Others2, where

this Court observed that non-compliance with Section 36 of the Act,

which lays down the requirements at the initiation of confiscation

proceedings, would vitiate the process. The petitioner contended that a

similar non-compliance occurred in the present case at the stage of

initiating proceedings under Section 56.

(vii) The petitioner also submitted that no effective opportunity of hearing was

afforded to him during the course of the proceeding before Opposite

Party No. 3. It is contended that the petitioner was not allowed to adduce

evidence or examine witnesses in support of his case. Reliance was placed

on the decision of this Court in Sabita Das v. State of Orissa and Others3,

where, in similar circumstances involving alleged denial of opportunity,

the matter was remitted to the authority for fresh adjudication. On that

basis, the petitioner asserted that the present matter also warrants

remand for reconsideration.

(viii) The petitioner lastly relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of

Orissa v. Niranjan Nayak4, wherein the Court emphasized that

continued retention of a seized vehicle for an inordinately long period

cannot be justified, as such custody serves no meaningful legal purpose

and only results in deterioration of the property. It was observed that a

vehicle, being a depreciable and perishable asset, loses utility and value if

kept idle for years together, and that prolonged detention, without a

definitive adjudication, may undermine rather than advance the cause of

2015 (11) OLR (FB)-1.

2019 (Supp-II) OLR -27.

W.P.(C) No. 16317 of 2011.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

justice. Placing reliance on these principles, the petitioner submitted that

the reinstatement or continuation of the confiscation order is not

sustainable and that the prolonged retention of the vehicle since

24.09.2017 warrants appropriate relief in the present case.

(ix) The petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat5, wherein the Court held

that seized vehicles should not remain in official custody for long periods

because such retention serves no useful purpose and leads to

deterioration of the property. The Supreme Court observed that courts

should pass appropriate orders at an early stage for release of the vehicle

on suitable terms, and where no person claims ownership, the vehicle

may be sold in accordance with law. On the strength of this principle, the

petitioner submitted that the prolonged custody of the vehicle in the

present case is inconsistent with the approach indicated by the Supreme

Court and therefore calls for appropriate relief.

(x) The petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Ashis Ranjan

Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Others6, where guidelines were issued

regarding the release or disposal of seized vehicles. It was held that

vehicles should ordinarily be released to the rightful owner or an

authorised person after preparation of a proper panchnama,

photographic and videographic documentation, encryption and

preservation of the digital record, preparation of a valuation report and

execution of a security bond. This Court further directed that once these

steps are complied with, production of the vehicle during trial is not

(2002) 10 SCC 283.

2022 (I) OLR 555.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

necessary, and that courts should generally order release or permit sale of

such vehicles, except for valid reasons recorded in writing. It was also

observed that if the vehicle is insured, notice must be issued to the

insurer, and where no claim is made by the owner, insurer or any third

party, the vehicle may be sold through public auction. Relying on these

directions, the petitioner contended that continued retention of his

vehicle since 2017 is inconsistent with the principles laid down by this

Court.

(xi) The petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

General Insurance Council and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Others7, where the Court took note of the fact that seized vehicles, when

kept idle for prolonged periods in police stations, deteriorate rapidly due

to weather exposure and loss of roadworthiness, and often suffer theft or

removal of parts. The Supreme Court underscored the need for timely

disposal or release of such vehicles and issued directions to ensure proper

implementation of statutory provisions governing their custody and

disposal. Placing reliance on these observations, the petitioner submitted

that long-term retention of his vehicle since 2017 defeats the very purpose

of seizure and results in avoidable deterioration, and therefore

appropriate orders are warranted in the present case.

(xii) The petitioner also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of

Bihar v. Kedar Sao8, where the Court, while construing parallel

provisions of the Indian Forest Act as amended by the Bihar Amendment

Act, held that once the Magistrate receives intimation of initiation of

(2010) 6 SCC 768.

AIR 2003 SC 3650.