Sadhab Charan Behera vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9192 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sadhab Charan Behera vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 17 October, 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: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                              W.P.(C) No. 20078 of 2025
        (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
        Constitution of India, 1950).

         Sadhab Charan Behera                       ....                 Petitioner(s)
                                         -versus-
         State of Odisha and Ors.                   ....         Opposite Party (s)

      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

         For Petitioner(s)           :                   Mr. Laxman Pradhan, Adv.



         For Opposite Party (s)      :                     Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC

                  CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                        DATE OF HEARING:-04.09.2025
                       DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to

quash the impugned confiscation orders dated 13.02.2017, 20.11.2020,

and 07.02.2024, and to direct the opposite parties to release the seized

machinery and timber forthwith as per law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, Sadhab Charan Behera, a resident of Ashok Nagar,

Athagada, District Cuttack, is a carpenter by profession engaged in

carpentry work within his house premises and nearby areas.

(ii) On 08.11.2012, the Range Officer, Athagada, along with forest officials

and a Magistrate, conducted a raid at the petitioner's residence and

seized machinery and materials in connection with OR Case No. 43A of

2012-13, alleging violation of provisions under the Odisha Saw Mill and

Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991.

(iii) During the search, several machines such as cutter machines, a Kunda

machine, and timber consisting of mango and teak planks measuring

approximately 0.7122 cubic meters were seized.

(iv) The petitioner asserted that he was exempt under Section 25 of the

Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, claiming his

establishment was a small-scale carpentry unit using a 1 HP cutter

machine and not a saw mill or saw pit.

(v) The opposite parties contended that the petitioner was operating an

unlicensed saw mill and had failed to produce valid documents

regarding licensing or lawful procurement of timber, except one sawing

memo issued by Mahalaxmi Saw Mill, Dhenkanal.

(vi) The seized materials were transported to the Division Malkhana and

kept under official custody following the raid. The Divisional Forest

Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Athagada, after inquiry, passed an

order of confiscation on 13.02.2017.

(vii) The petitioner challenged the order in FAO No. 20 of 2017 before the

District Judge, Cuttack, which was remanded to the Regional Chief

Conservator of Forest, Angul, for reconsideration. The Regional Chief

Conservator of Forest, Angul, dismissed the appeal on 20.11.2020,

affirming the confiscation order.

(viii) The petitioner again preferred FAO No. 7 of 2021 before the 2nd

Additional District Judge, Cuttack, which was dismissed on 07.02.2024,

thereby confirming the earlier orders.

(ix) The petitioner relied on the judgment in State of Odisha v. Jyotshna

Mohapatra1, asserting that his activities were confined to carpentry

work and thus did not constitute operation of a saw mill.

(x) The opposite parties maintained that Section 25 of the Act did not apply

since the evidence indicated unlicensed saw mill operations involving

electrical machinery and large timber stock.

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 contends that his carpentry unit is exempt under Section

25 of the Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, as it is not

a saw mill or saw pit but merely a household-level carpentry workshop

using a small-scale electric cutter.

(ii) The seizure of machinery and initiation of OR Case No. 43A of 2012-13

is illegal and unsustainable, as the activity falls outside the scope of the

Act.

(iii) The authorities failed to consider the statutory exemption and

misapplied Sections 9 and 10 of the Control Order, resulting in arbitrary

confiscation.

(iv) The orders of confiscation (13.02.2017), appellate order (20.11.2020), and

judgment of 2nd ADJ (07.02.2024) are contrary to law, ignoring both the

2018 (1) OLR 139

factual nature of petitioner's work and the precedent in State v.

Jyotshna Mohapatra (Supra).

(v) The petitioner asserts that he has no alternate, equally efficacious

remedy and seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders and

direct return of seized articles.

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 opposite parties contend that the petitioner was running a full-

fledged illegal saw mill without a valid license or authorization, thereby

violating Sections 4, 9, 10, and 11 of the Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits

(Control) Act, 1991.

(ii) The seized machinery and volume of timber prove beyond doubt that

the petitioner's activity went far beyond mere carpentry work, falling

squarely within the statutory definition of a saw mill.

(iii) The petitioner failed to maintain or produce mandatory records,

documents, or receipts proving legal procurement of timber as required

under Section 10 of the Act, and used electric motors to power

unlicensed equipment in contravention of Section 11.

(iv) The confiscation proceedings were conducted lawfully, with proper

search, seizure, and documentation procedures followed. The

concurrent findings by three statutory forums (DFO, RCCF, and 2nd

ADJ) confirm the petitioner's violations.

(v) The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has already

exhausted the entire statutory appellate framework under the Act and

has not demonstrated any jurisdictional error or breach of natural

justice.

(vi) The petitioner's reliance on State v. Jyotshna Mohapatra (Supra)

misplaced, as the present case involves substantial saw mill operations

with machinery and timber stock, unlike a mere carpentry unit.

(vii) The scope of writ jurisdiction does not extend to reappreciation of

evidence or concurrent findings of fact, as held in Syed Yakoob v. K.S.

Radhakrishnan2; hence, the writ petition is an abuse of process intended

to reopen concluded factual issues.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT:

5. The Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Athagarh, after

detailed inquiry and examination of evidence, held that the appellant

was operating an unlicensed saw mill within his residential premises,

storing a considerable quantity of timber, and using electric motors in

contravention of Sections 4, 9, 10, and 11 of the Odisha Saw Mill and

Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. Accordingly, confiscation of seized

machinery and forest produce was ordered under Section 13(b) and (d)

of the Act by order dated 13.02.2017.

6. The District Judge, Cuttack, in FAO No. 20 of 2017, found that the seized

machines were used for carpentry work rather than saw mill operations

and held that the petitioner's activities fell within the exemption under

Section 25 of the Act. The confiscation order was, therefore, set aside

and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication by the competent

authority.

AIR 1964 SC 477

7. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul, upon

reconsideration in Misc. Case No. 35 of 2020, analyzed the prior

confiscation proceedings, upheld the DFO's findings, and concluded

that the appellant was indeed engaged in illegal saw mill operations.

The R.C.C.F. confirmed the confiscation order vide Office Order No.

207/4F dated 20.11.2020, observing that all statutory requirements

under Section 13 had been duly followed.

8. The lower forums noted that the appellant had failed to produce any

license, documents for procurement of wood, or credible evidence to

support his claim of exemption under Section 25. The consistent

testimony of forest officials and seizure of machinery and timber stock

reinforced the conclusion that saw mill operations were being carried

out.

9. It was also observed that the search and seizure were conducted in the

presence of the Executive Magistrate, with proper documentation and

procedural compliance. Allegations of bias or personal grudge against

the forest officials were dismissed as unsubstantiated and lacking

evidentiary support.

10. The authorities emphasized that the exemption under Section 25 could

not be invoked in cases involving large-scale wood processing and use

of electrical machinery resembling commercial saw mill operations.

Consequently, the concurrent findings of the DFO and R.C.C.F. upheld

the legality and propriety of the confiscation.

11. Overall, the lower courts concluded that the proceedings were

conducted in compliance with Section 13 of the Act, the evidence

sufficiently established unlicensed saw mill activity, and there were no

procedural irregularities warranting interference

V. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS:

12. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

13. The petitioner's core plea is that his small household carpentry unit is

exempt from the rigors of the Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control)

Act, 1991 ("the Act") by virtue of Section 25, which saves ordinary

operations of carpentry not involving saw mill or saw pit operation. The

Opposite Parties, on the other hand, maintain that what the petitioner

was running is nothing short of an unlicensed saw mill, evidenced by

the seizure of powered sawing machinery and a substantial quantity of

timber, thus squarely attracting the provisions of the Act.

14. The Section 25 of the Act provides that the Act shall not apply to the

ordinary operations of carpentry not involving saw mill or saw pit

operation. The intent of this provision is to spare genuine small-scale

carpenters, who use manual tools or minimal machinery for carpentry

work, from the licensing regime, not to offer a safe harbor for

clandestine sawmills masquerading as household workshops.

15. The statutory definitions make this clear: a saw mill under the Act

includes the plant and machinery with which, and the premises in

which, sawing is carried on with the aid of electrical or mechanical

power. In this case, the very nature of the seized items, including an

electrically powered cutter machine of one horsepower, a Kunda

machine used for woodworking, and stacks of mango and teak planks

measuring about 0.7122 cubic meters, strongly suggests that the

petitioner's establishment was engaged in sawing timber using

mechanical power. Such activity goes beyond ordinary carpentry and

squarely falls within the definition of a saw mill as contemplated by the

Act. The saving clause in Section 25 cannot be interpreted to shield

operations involving mechanical sawing of timber, which is precisely

the mischief the statute seeks to regulate.

16. The Act creates a statutory presumption to aid enforcement under

Section 16. The relevant excerpts of the same are produced below:

"16. (1) Where wood whether sawn or unsawn is recovered from a saw mill or saw pit for which no valid licence exists in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the Rules, it shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed that the saw mill or saw pit was in operation, and the burden of so proving the contrary shall lie on the accused.

(2) Where, in any prosecution for an offence against this Act or the Rules, it is established that any wood declared unlawful was seized in the premises of a saw mill of a person, or at any site where sawing was being done, it shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed that such person has contravened the provisions of the Act or the Rules, and the burden of so proving the contrary shall lie on the accused."

17. Section 16(1) provides that if any wood, sawn or unsawn, is recovered

from a saw mill or a sawing site operating without a valid licence, it

shall be presumed, until proven otherwise, that the saw mill was in

operation and the burden of proving the contrary lies on the accused.

Similarly, Section 16(2) states that if unlawful wood is seized at a site

where sawing was being carried out, the occupant of that site shall be

presumed to have contravened the provisions of the Act, and the

burden of proof rests upon them.

18. In the present case, the recovery of a substantial quantity of timber,

including mango and teak planks, from the petitioner's premises, along

with the presence of powered saw machines, clearly attracts these

statutory presumptions. The petitioner was under an obligation to rebut

the inference that he was operating an unlicensed saw mill. Except for

a single sawing memo said to have been issued by a licensed saw mill

in Dhenkanal, he has not produced any reliable documents to show the

lawful source of the timber or to establish that the use of his electric

cutter was authorised or beyond the scope of the Act. On a prima facie

assessment, therefore, the statutory presumption of illegal operation

remains unrebutted by any credible evidence from the petitioner's side.

19. It is noteworthy that three levels of competent authorities have recorded

concurrent findings against the petitioner. The Divisional Forest Officer,

acting as the Authorized Officer under the Act, conducted an inquiry

and found that the petitioner was operating an unlicensed saw mill.

Accordingly, an order was passed for confiscation of the seized

machinery and timber. The first appellate court, the learned District

Judge in FAO No. 20 of 2017, expressed some doubt and remanded the

matter for fresh consideration, but did not exonerate the petitioner. The

purpose of the remand was limited to reassessing the nature of the

activity.

20. After remand, the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul, re-

examined the entire matter and by order dated 20 November 2020,

upheld the confiscation, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim of

being a mere carpenter. Subsequently, the Second Additional District

Judge, Cuttack, in FAO No. 7 of 2021, by judgment dated 7 February

2024, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and conclusively held that the

petitioner's establishment amounted to an unlawful saw mill operation.

These are concurrent findings of fact reached after careful consideration

of the evidence on record, including the type of machines used, the

quantity and nature of the timber, and the absence of purchase or

licence documents.

21. It is well settled that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court

does not act as an appellate forum to re-appreciate evidence or overturn

factual determinations merely because a different view is conceivable.

The Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob (Supra) has cautioned that a writ

of certiorari cannot be used to correct errors of fact or to substitute the

High Court's view on facts for that of the lower tribunal. The relevant

excerpts are produced below:

"There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari."

22. The abovementioned precedent makes it clear that unless it is shown

that the findings are perverse or there is a jurisdictional error or denial

of natural justice, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent

factual findings in its supervisory jurisdiction.

23. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the

authorities acted outside their jurisdiction or violated any fundamental

procedural safeguards. On the contrary, the record suggests that the

petitioner was given due opportunity at each stage, he participated in

the inquiry, filed appeals, and was heard, but failed to substantiate his

defense. It was enacted in the backdrop of rampant illicit felling and

unregulated saw mills contributing to deforestation. The regulatory

scheme is stringent by design, no saw mill can operate without a licence,

and even licensed mills are not allowed within certain distances from

forest areas to curb sourcing of illicit timber.

24. It is useful to recollect the broader objective behind the legislation. The

Orissa Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 is a forest

conservation measure with a preventive, welfare-oriented objective to

curb illegal timber operations and protect forest resources.

25. Courts must be vigilant that the regulatory intent is not defeated under

the guise of sympathy for small operators. If the petitioner's argument

were to be accepted, any person could install an electrical saw in a shed,

stockpile timber without provenance, and on being caught, simply

claim to be a humble carpenter. That would render the Act and its

licensing mechanism nugatory.

26. This Court is mindful that while genuine artisans and carpenters

deserve protection, the petitioner's operation, as found on facts, crossed

the line into an illegal saw mill activity. Giving him the benefit of the

Section 25 exemption would not only contravene the letter of the law

but also erode the efficacy of forest protection efforts. Therefore, looking

to the public interest and legislative intent, the enforcement action in

this case is fully justified.

VI. CONCLUSION:

27. On an overall assessment, this Court is satisfied that the impugned

confiscation order and the subsequent appellate orders suffer from no

legal infirmity. The authorities below correctly appreciated the evidence

and applied the law, especially the Section 25 exemption, in its proper

perspective. The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate any error

apparent on the face of record or any jurisdictional error that would

warrant the extraordinary intervention of this Court under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution.

28. For the reasons discussed above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The

order of confiscation dated 13.02.2017 passed by the Divisional Forest

Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Athagarh Division, as affirmed first by

the Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Angul on 20.11.2020 and

then by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack on 07.02.2024, is

hereby upheld. Consequently, the seized machinery and timber shall

remain confiscated to the State, subject to any liberty available to the

petitioner under law to seek compounding or release

29. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/