Telangana High Court
WP/11528/2002 of The Forest Range Officer, Vs Durga Auto Financiers, on 26 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11528 of 2002 % 26.12.2008 Between: The Forest Range Officer. ....PETITIONER And Durga Auto Financiers and another. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: G.P. FOR FORESTS ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy <
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11528 of 2002
% 26.12.2008Between:
The Forest Range Officer.
....PETITIONER
And
Durga Auto Financiers and another.
...RESPONDENTS
! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: G.P. FOR FORESTS^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS: Nil
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITIION No.11528 of 2002
The second respondent is the owner of a vehicle bearing No. APD
3697. In the patrolling conducted by the Special Party, Forest Department,Khammam, on 13.12.1991, the lorry was found to be loaded with teak timber. A caseunder Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) wasregistered and the proceedings were initiated before the Authorised Officer,Khammam. Through his order, dated 14.08.1998, the Authorised Officer directedconfiscation of the lorry as well as the timber. Aggrieved thereby, the respondentsfiled C.M.A.No.44 of 1998 in the Court of the District Judge, Khammam. The appealwas partly allowed, through judgment, dated 03.01.2001. It was ordered that half ofthe value of the seized lorry be confiscated. This writ petition is filed against the saidorder.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and Sri SaiGanagadhar Chamarthy, the learned counsel for the respondents.
The second respondent did not claim ownership of the timber which was foundloaded in the lorry. It emerges that there did not exist valid permits for the timber. The Authorised Officer directed confiscation of the seized timber as well as the lorry.The appeal was preferred in respect of confiscation of the vehicle alone. The lowerappellate Court partly allowed the appeal and directed release of the lorry subject toconfiscation of half of the value.
Section 44(2-A) of the Act is clear in its purport. It empowers the AuthorisedOfficer to direct confiscation of the forest produce that is not covered by valid permits,as well as vehicle or receptacle used for transport thereof. The Authorised Officerfound that the vehicle was used in transporting illicit timber and accordingly directedconfiscation thereof. In case the appellate Court was not satisfied about the reasonsassigned by the Authorised Officer, it ought to have set aside the order ofconfiscation. It did not find any irregularity in the order or defect in the reasoning givenby the Authorised Officer. It did not set aside any findings. The only basis for whichthe order of confiscation was modified is that it was a first offence, on the part of thesecond respondent.
Though Section 44(2-E) of the Act confers power on the District Court tointerfere with the order of confiscation and to pass any order as it thinks fit, it has tobe read in the context of Section 44(2-A). The Section provides forconfiscation of the vehicle. In case the appellate Court finds that there is no basis forconfiscation, it has only to set aside the order of confiscation. A direction for confiscation of half of the value would lead to contradiction in terms. On the one hand,the confiscation is upheld and on the other its vigour watered down. The provisions ofthe Act do not contemplate such a situation.
On facts also, the record discloses that the second respondent did not come tothe witness box, much less, did he prove his lack of knowledge of the illegal use of thevehicle or precautions on his part to ensure that the vehicle is not put to any illicit use.Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J
Dt:26.12.2008Note: L.R. copy to be marked.kdl