Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Aditya Kumar Mallick (Owner) & .... ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7360 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
State of Odisha .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Aditya Kumar Mallick (owner) & .... Opposite Party (s)
Ors.
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, ASC
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-13.05.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, prays for setting aside the
order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar
in F.A.O. No. 03 of 2022, whereby the order dated 31.12.2021 passed
by the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar in OR Case No. 135CH
of 2019-20 was set aside, and the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e.,
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
HGV bearing Registration No. OD-02-AR-5765, was held entitled to
release of the vehicle in accordance with law.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 27.12.2019, while the forest staff were performing night patrolling
on the Gogudari-Lunuguthani road near village Lunuguthani at
about 10:00 P.M., they saw an HGV vehicle bearing registration No.
OD-02-AR-5765 proceeding from the Gogudari side towards
Lunuguthani, loaded with iron ore.
(ii) The driver and helper, i.e., Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, were asked to
produce legal documents, but they could not do so and instead
admitted that the loaded iron ore had been illegally procured from
GugudariKhesra forest area and was being transported to
Basudevpur.
(iii) The Forest Officials, being convinced that a forest offence had been
committed involving the transportation of illegally procured forest
produce using the said vehicle, seized the forest produce and
registered FIR No. 0054959/2758 dated 27.12.2019. A forest case was
also registered as O.R. Case No. 135CH/2019-20 for violation of Rules
4, 12, and 14 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit
Rules, 1980.
(iv) On 28.12.2019, the accused persons were produced, interrogated, and
their confessional statements were recorded. Both accused persons
confessed that, under the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, i.e.,
Opposite Party No. 1, they were transporting illegally procured iron
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
ore from the Gramya Jungle of Gugudari village to Basudevpur for
commercial purposes.
(v) Opposite Party No. 1 was issued notices on 11.01.2020 and 31.01.2020
to appear before the Authorised Officer. Pursuant to a requisition
made to the Tahsildar, a joint verification was conducted on
02.02.2020, which revealed that the site of illegal procurement of iron
ore falls under Plot No. 4, Khata No. 54, classified as Gramya Jungle
Kisam.
(vi) Opposite Party No. 1 was again issued notice on 25.02.2020. Despite
issuance of notices on three occasions, he did not respond.
(vii) Based on the investigation, documentary and circumstantial evidence
corroborating the facts, it was ascertained that a forest offence had
been committed involving the illegal procurement and transportation
of forest produce, namely 16.8 MT (approximately) of iron ore, from
Gugudari Gramya Jungle in the alleged vehicle, within the meaning of
Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. It was observed that
there existed prima facie evidence of violation of Rules 4 and 12 of the
Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980,
punishable under Rule 21 of the said Rules. It was further found that
the offence had been committed after sunset. Upon consideration of
the entire evidence available on record and after hearing both parties,
the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar Division, passed an order
dated 31.12.2021 confiscating the vehicle to the State.
(viii) Challenging the said order, Opposite Party No. 1 preferred F.A.O. No.
03 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. After hearing
the parties, the learned District Judge held that the confiscation
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
proceeding was not sustainable in the eye of law due to lack of a
statutory inquiry as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the
Odisha Forest (Detection, Inquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence)
Rules, 1980. The Court further observed that the seized material, being
iron ore, is classified as minor forest produce under the relevant rules,
and therefore, no transit permit was required for its transportation
within the district. On the basis of these observations and findings, the
learned District Judge, by order dated 14.12.2023, set aside the order
dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF,
Keonjhar in OR Case No. 135CH of 2019-20 and directed that the
owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., HGV bearing Registration No.
OD-02-AR-5765, is entitled to get back the vehicle in accordance with
law.
(ix) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, the
Petitioner has filed 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 impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is ex facie
illegal and liable to be set aside, as the findings suffer from perversity.
The Authorised Officer had clearly recorded that iron ore, which
qualifies as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha
Forest Act, 1972, was seized from the alleged vehicle and was being
transported by the present Opposite Parties.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is ex facie
illegal and liable to be set aside, as the findings suffer from perversity.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
The Authorised Officer had clearly recorded that iron ore, which
qualifies as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha
Forest Act, 1972, was seized from the alleged vehicle and was being
transported by the present Opposite Parties.
(iii) Iron ore is classified as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the
Odisha Forest Act, 1972, and a transit permit is mandatorily required
for its extraction and transportation. In the absence of such a permit,
both the forest produce and the vehicle used become liable for seizure
and confiscation under Section 56(2)(a) of the Act.
(iv) The learned District Judge failed to appreciate that an inquiry under
Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest
Offence) Rules, 1980 is not mandatory. The seizure report and list,
prepared post-detection, are sufficient for an officer of the rank of
Assistant Conservator of Forest or above to form a prima facie opinion
and initiate confiscation proceedings.
(v) The Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence)
Rules, 1980, framed under Section 72 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972,
do not apply to confiscation proceedings under Section 56. Such
proceedings are governed by sub-sections (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c) of
Section 56. In support, reliance was placed on Anatha Bandhu Mandal
v. State of Odisha & Others.1
(vi) The District Judge erred in holding that there was no evidence of
transportation beyond the district. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 4
established that the iron ore was being transported to Basudevpur,
which lies outside the district, without a transit permit. This evidence
(II) OLR (FB) 2015.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
was not shaken in cross-examination. Further, the District Judge
overlooked the unchallenged statements of PWs 2 and 4 regarding the
destination, which amounted to implied admission.
(vii) DW-1 (Opposite Party No. 1) admitted that he neither retained nor
verified any identity document of the driver, nor a copy of his driving
licence. These omissions show failure to take reasonable precautions
to prevent illegal transportation.
(viii) The Odisha Forest Act is a welfare statute intended to preserve forests
and forest produce. In the present case, all ingredients of a forest
offence were established, and the confiscation was rightly ordered.
The District Judge erred in setting aside the order.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar, concluded that the
vehicle was transporting forest produce without a transit permit and
accordingly passed the confiscation order dated 31.12.2021.
Aggrieved, the deponent preferred F.A.O. No. 03 of 2022 before the
learned District Judge, Keonjhar, contending that the confiscation was
vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Odisha
(Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980.
While a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4(1) had been conducted by
the Forester, the mandatory statutory enquiry by the Range Officer
under Rule 4(2) was not conducted.
(ii) Under Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules, the Forester must conduct a
preliminary enquiry and submit Form No. 1 to the Range Officer, who
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
is then required to carry out an independent enquiry and forward the
case record to the Authorised Officer. In the present case, although
PW-4 (Range Officer) claimed to have conducted such an enquiry,
PW-1's testimony established that the investigation was conducted
solely by the Forester.
(iii) The District Judge, upon examining the evidence, held that the
confiscation proceeding was not in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the 1980 Rules. As per settled law, when
a statute prescribes a specific procedure, any deviation renders the
action unsustainable. Accordingly, the confiscation was held to be
vitiated for want of statutory compliance.
(iv) In Rabinarayan Sahu v. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range &
Others2, this Court held that where a statute prescribes a particular
mode for the exercise of statutory power, it must be followed strictly
or not at all.
(v) The vehicle was seized near Village Lunugutumi in Keonjhar District
while allegedly transporting iron ore from Gugudari Gramya Jungle.
As per Rule 5(i) of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce
Transit Rules, 1980, no transit permit is required for transporting
minor forest produce, such as iron ore, within the same district.
Therefore, the District Judge rightly held that no transit permit was
necessary and that the confiscation order was unsustainable.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on
record.
(2008) 41 OCR 284.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
6. The principal issue for determination is whether the learned District
Judge erred in setting aside the confiscation order dated 31.12.2021
passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar, on the grounds
of (a) non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(2)
of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest
Offence) Rules, 1980, and (b) absence of a requirement for a transit
permit under the applicable rules.
7. In order to examine the correctness of the impugned order, it is
necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions governing the
confiscation of forest produce and the procedural safeguards
thereunder.
8. Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 defines "forest
produce" to include minerals, such as iron ore, when found in or
brought from a forest.
9. Section 56(2) of the Act empowers the Authorised Officer to order
confiscation of forest produce, along with any tools, vehicles, or
articles used in the commission of a forest offence.
10. Rule 4 of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest
Offence) Rules, 1980 outlines a two-stage inquiry mechanism. Under
Rule 4(1), the Forester is required to conduct a preliminary enquiry
and submit the report in Form No. 1 to the Range Officer. Rule 4(2)
mandates that the Range Officer must then conduct an independent
enquiry and, upon satisfaction that a forest offence has been
committed, forward the case record to the Authorised Officer for
further action.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
11. The language of Rule 4(2) is unequivocal. The requirement for an
independent enquiry by the Range Officer is not a mere formality but
a mandatory procedural safeguard. It is intended to prevent arbitrary
confiscation and ensure an objective evaluation before property is
deprived.
12. Further, it is a well-settled principle of law that where a statute
prescribes a particular mode for exercising a statutory power, such
procedure must be followed strictly.
13. In the instant case, the learned District Judge has returned a
categorical finding, based on the evidence on record, that there was no
compliance with Rule 4(2). While PW-1 (Forester) conducted the
preliminary enquiry, there is no credible material to show that PW-4
(Range Officer) undertook an independent enquiry or even verified
the facts before forwarding the case record to the Authorised Officer.
The absence of this mandatory step renders the confiscation
proceedings unsustainable in law.
14. On the second limb of the District Judge's reasoning, namely the
requirement of a transit permit, the Court finds no error. The evidence
led by the prosecution regarding transportation beyond district limits
was not conclusive. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 4, while suggestive
of a destination outside Keonjhar district, were not substantiated by
documentary or corroborative evidence.
15. Rule 5(i) of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit
Rules, 1980 provides that no transit permit is required for transporting
minor forest produce within the same district. In the absence of clear
evidence that the consignment was intended for transport beyond
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
district boundaries, the learned District Judge was justified in holding
that the confiscation could not be sustained for lack of a permit.
16. The confiscation of private property, particularly vehicles, involves
serious civil consequences. It must, therefore, be predicated on
scrupulous adherence to the statutory procedure. In this case, the
District Judge's conclusion is based on sound legal reasoning and a
correct appreciation of the evidentiary record.
17. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in
the impugned order that would justify interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
V. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no grounds to
interfere with the well-reasoned and legally sound order passed by
the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. The findings recorded therein
are based on a correct interpretation of the applicable statutory
provisions and a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
20. The order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge in
F.A.O. No.03 of 2022 is hereby affirmed.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the20th June, 2025
