Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Tulsiyan vs State Of Odisha And Another .... Opp. ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO. 37215 OF 2022
Dillip Kumar Tulsiyan .... Petitioner
Ms. Pranayanee Dasmohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.04.2023 3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 22nd September, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed in FAO No.5 of 2020 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Angul dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 28th November, 2020 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum- Assistant Conservator of Forests, Angul Forest Division in Confiscation Proceeding No. 14 of 2017-18 (arising out of OR No.14A of 2017-18).
3. Ms. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner mainly assails the impugned order on the ground that although he had valid TT permit for transporting the timber seized, the same was not taken into consideration either by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests or by learned Appellate Court. It is her submission that on 22nd March, 2018 on N.H.-5 near Caltas Chhak, Turanga, the vehicle Page 1 of 4 // 2 // of the Petitioner bearing Registration No.OR-19-D-4515 (Truck) along with 489 pieces of Sal and non-Sal sizes were seized on the allegation that timber was being transported without any valid TT permit. It is further submitted that although the Petitioner had produced all relevant documents before the Authorized Officer to show that he had valid TT permit for transporting the timber seized, but neither the Authorized Officer nor learned Appellate Court took the same into consideration. As such, the impugned order under Annexure-4 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the impugned order under Annexure-4 submits that the Petitioner himself admitted that he does not have any valid TT permit to transport of the seized timber. He verily relied upon the observation in the impugned order at paragraphs-6.7 and 7.1, which read as under:
"6.7 DW1 (Dillip Kumar Tulsiyan)-the appellant himself has admitted in his evidence as examined on behalf of defence as DW1 that he had not obtained any document to stock the timber. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he had no transit permit of truck. He has also admitted in his cross- examination that he has stored the sized Sal and non- Sal timber to purchase and sale without any license or permit as it is not profitable to do so by obtaining the license from Government. So, the very statement of the accused/appellant reveals that on the date of detection, he had no valid license.
xxx xxx xxx 7.1 DW1, the appellant himself in his evidence admitted that on 22.03.2018 he loaded the truck to transport the same by obtaining the order from a Page 2 of 4 // 3 // place. Therefore, the evidence of DW1 itself speaks that the truck was loaded to transport the timber from one place to another. Further during the cross- examination, the said accused/appellant admitted that there was no transit permit of truck."
In view of the above, it is his submission that nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.
5. On a query, Ms. Dasmohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner could not produce any valid TT permit covering the date of seizure of the vehicle of the Petitioner, i.e. on 22nd March, 2018.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner had produced a Xerox copy of the TT permit issued by the D.F.O., Boudh covering the period from 3rd May, 2018 to 31st May, 2018. But learned Appellate Court on assessment of the said document came to a conclusion that neither the same covers the date on which the vehicle of the Petitioner was seized nor it relates to transport of the seized timber. Further, learned Appellate Court at paragraph-6.7 has categorically observed that D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that he had not obtained any document either to stock or transport the timber. In his cross-examination, he has also admitted that he had no transit permit for the Truck. Further, it is admitted that he had stored the sized Sal and non- Sal timber to purchase and sale without any license or permit as it is not profitable to do so by obtaining the license from Government. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the Petitioner was transporting the timber without any valid permit.
Page 3 of 4// 4 // As such, neither the Authorized Officer nor learned Appellate Court has committed any error in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and confiscating the vehicle along with seized timber.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
bks Judge
Page 4 of 4