Vinarom Private Limited vs The Range Forest Officer on 14 March, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Vinarom Private Limited vs The Range Forest Officer on 14 March, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

DATED THIS THE 14'"? DA}! (31? %MARCH'2gb8  & %  _ 

mm-F0;_.ﬁ..aE: 

 ''M'*'" E  B&'m"'"'""'

 

vlulnuu; .1 §lV;'§-I-C} .I.4uu|.=9u  A

% H!Yins%its  6-fﬁee at  
% 13"":_1'oor, 

29, G. Rand'  A  % L
Bangalome+5%60 001*» _ "  "
 A   
p1o:Nas. 251%, 2"' Cross
-.EiLgisn:1A'IndJ;suial 

ﬁe-mi 
%   
 Aﬁapresaslisadby its

Tg'cicuJnnn.-:-.  .LIIIII:I'I;ﬂfI'IIi':Il'&
1 ~-ullun.-ev qugu .:1uun|unu can 1: u_

Tux. mm.  Suvurna ..  RETFTIONER

    K. P. KI.!,_....r fur
'AAV_'Advocate) " T '

M./3 K;i___z;g;_s_1:It1 , .6 g , St._mi r

I l'l'II I1 'I'1,,_,,,,.,A l'\I'V!,, _,_
1. 1_n§1uu}ge_romsLu;1wc_:r

' Fbroétlﬁobilé -Squad"

5'



"J-nun' *'* "ya BhavafI"
Malleswaram '
% Bangalore-560 055   

2. The Deputy Ccmservalor

of Forests, Forest

Mobile Squad

"Arenya Bhavan"
"Ma'iieswanun V   
Bengeloxe-560 055   __ 

U)

. 'i"ne1'.'lt_:pu'ty_s'3or:ser:viiior::": V  1  
of Forests; Bgngalore     
Urban__'.}ivision.';'« " j o_ " » V  »
1:r-...._...'-I-._ .ci'.,...._ f;\.....-.';.~.a,'V. '  V : e
1s.umuwg;u:pl§_Iw ruI::;n~.._' ¢_ " 
D_epo:_'1:__r_n'mL Aaanya Bhavnn, .  V
 %     
"Ba.-"n@:'.-:~:.--5..£!' "€3.55 _  "

4. The Sea; of 
5R" -._-_t'eé._1;sy Secretary

';_..-_r. -- .. --

v-  Foresi'Depm1Jnent-

'- e k     REs'Po'u"oE"NTs

 (gm  Sangolli and Shri. M._ B. _Pmbhakar,
%_ Additioim!"Govornmenl Advocate)

lit!!!

 '  This Write--Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

 gthe Cionstituﬁon of "indie pmyiiug to set aside the impugned
*  order epgssga by the appellate ooI_._l!'t. on. 3.1. in
Cr.A.55/2006 vide Anneoxurb-Tribunal, upholding the order of '

the respondent no.2 and ihereby order reieese of i9.i9.KG. of

5



' "B"Groupthisd'ay,ﬂ:e CouI1vmadc°'t;Iie5if¢Vz5tli)v3t?'ii3_g':~~,V _ ~ '

 oii wrongi_y_oo_n1'iacateci  tin: 

msmndentg,

-- ------l-- -------------

91-" u I'! '.| 1'\ ;';' ',_ _    ._' V_.v. '!i...-V_'_'V:;...... 3:... 'i
1 ms Wnl reunion coming on 101'. ..rr_;3I;£nI;tt|ay _'l'1'.t-'&ll1ll}§.,l.Il

ﬁlinn iIj§'in.':n  4\I-"'-591-nni*'.':l;'I_'n ru 1-Jlrilltl ig

I-II-ill vvlazuaa -'IIIII CV-I-fl 3 l_'C'OI-t, may-pol o-ow-nu--.3

 for'     

2.    ﬁetitioncr and the Cuunsei

   3.iiTl:eV_Ihs:ts--.ai*e_it§'~iii)llows:

A A" ~   is engaged in  Vm%a_nut"i1ctuI:e and stain of It

i    etc.-, and f(ItiputptjSB§_0i':Su_0h rnnnuﬁxctuafe.

" _ ﬁiitit:-iier   cu m iibuuii n.

uiiea  raw-nnnterial, inehnling sandal-wood oil.' Since: the

'-u.' I.' 4n_n.|n4u4._n In u'I1\u-In u nan' Intlnu'
I vvuunl

In: an  1 u ..
IIUUIJVWI Ir\J Ell-II" SIHIIIIII-I"

 oil, the petitioner had ﬁled an application be_aI'ore- the Deputy

Cunaervator of--Forests, who - is the licensing authority for

;__gm1m.e £___

I
wrvw-aw--r

n--Lrng- !ii.=-.I1-._.~.t.r.r the; year 2001-02 under tlml



referred to as 'the Act' for Brevity)._ The   'V 

v such storage licence for the year   0

accordingly procured the  oii  in it

n.--_ _.._-1-_-. _. ...... -.._ .. ....,. . ,';  :,..__,"._,  __ ' '
U'i.aI Pﬂluuuan }nll'aiuu11'It.-  auui'1"'E!.ui'E:5ﬁ»__i.iuvr1uw.'2.:aw pwusiuum

had continued -to makeiisiueh  Jagat Aroma

_ Oil  way  parcel pest

«VCI L B' an.-ul u nun hum.' nnnﬂnr Ill mind .un1~_nI'l .91!'

and Hi   tin L n e u-L" n
 " an application for renewal
of   the year 2002-03 by surrendering
 iiihe petitioner had also maintained a

 .!r\\I'..E!.§.lﬂ._I-{l'1', «.3 IV!-liillvll luauvl In" an uuun-nu: ugly, 

 ~.   was renewed for the-year 2002-03. it is in

 that the petitionerhad_ continued to seek renewal of

   {tire licence every year in terms of the Act and Rules.

 Accordingly, the _  had  fer  '1' $6-

storage licence in the usual course--for the year 2004-05 and

had made an application" accordingly to the competent

Q

K-2 '



1. u
U:
...

. du nu-nu Anni': l_IlI'4IrIl1n|aAn:'il.l.|l' 'vet:

"Ila"-ll-_ n lIII§' VVGW Hill' §\fﬁ-IICJVVIIISEHI IJJ .'-{I39 L':lfBe'~I_3\-Pl3¢- u'_ However, even eﬂer a lapse of seyem__l_ moriths; . renewal was not complete. There [the nelitirn ,__ r____- _ ,_.. I - - __-

concerned respondent.

.|'.:.

I-

I"' bl 0 II it '5 3:

22

§ ..§ |-nd Sllllﬂd entered the factory premises. production of the gggrggg iieeiree' of sa_ndel_-wood, oil weighing 'd. S I I' 1' ' I A I' 4 '. .

V *ns,:~~ rnctumng we wergru or comelnens, about "

the possession of the petitioner. The to explain to the respondent that the I I I C i W -'--'-'-"W e1'~=....¢"n...*=-'=,--\.=-.1-..v....v' es! in qeeenon was raw-rnatenﬂ were procured and stored under a storage licence of' the it previous year and that the petitioner's -applicetion for renewal of the storage licence for the current year was pending uu sIi.i"f"'Li'"i IJ 'our 1 'E5 '- til ui..' Iu us' 1 us' ' ' -w'uuu' ' tail in C r e:cept..to avrii!.__ "by the l lllll-ICI l\I"I Ill' fI'Il-ll'!-l ll 1, - l\I'I" I ' A i IIIHSIIIIII-I IIZII IIIHI ll! WIJIIIIIIIIIUJIJ IN-' 'I -. .

3 .. , .

uv""'=-'-.3§uu in M§'i"'- .:_!_I..'u _ earlier storage licence. At this, thq 'V . to produce: a transit permit for haviligj on from Ulla: Pradush and having bmugﬁn m....1..s W grit t IL ".1 AL ,, The gfuetiiicjrzutjr _ the lnlll me same was procured Utter Pradcsh through its :Vjs.:aid§;i_ve:11;cih5r. . ' riaspondent however ':I1nI' '1 gmr tanggnguml I 5 C . ""' .~.r¢-v we .

drew up @5241»: in .3 wi_thuiit a storage iiuenuu or a transit It is tiie-vp-atiiioner's case that the sandal-wood oil in "di§t§!led ﬁum sandal-wood which earlier belonged itu_it.ht.~,S|ut.V. 'in!' Ta it-Mu. The AA Tamiinutiu--Forest Dcparlment said the sundai-wood to M/if -Jagat Surabhi(P) Limited, Kannauj, Utlar Prudesh. M/s .--<iJagat Surabhi (P)Limitc.d, Kannauj in turn, sold the sandal- nntauui R'! I In:

-I' wuuu IL': suJ'a 'I'ii. ('nut ii'\".u "FL ,, ,,,,,,,,,-,1,,_A,.!,,_,_ r-g,,,,.sn,,,,..,_ L_, .L,, ffg. ctluﬁlﬂeluuun. I13 Lreruucrﬂle ISSUE" Dy I113 "a'i"(.}ii3_V§|.'-. Department and the Sale Invoice issued ' (P)Limited to M/3 Jagut Aroma fen h

---...a. This i!H"""ﬁ'E' no - in-m__t.;s respondents. This in done alongwith the application licence. The petitioner the Deputy upon to pay a sum of Rs,5t},i(')-.'J_(L))"'-ash fee for closure of the case and of the was noiperiod speciﬁed for payment, . "of vi'ee,v"~Tt'ioweyer, within two days _therea.tter, that is on ._ respondent infonned the petitioner that xlsetter was withdrawn as the petitioner did not evince .; ~__ mt sat in the an tmnnt e I'-the (Ii. nu _a_g Ting rmlilinnnr rlirl _. .... ..._ ....-............-.. .. ..._... .... . -.. 3.... uuuuu . .....

protest against such shoddy and unfair ueatrnent. Thereafter, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice alleging that the sandal-wood oil possessed by the petitioner was without a

4. C2

- 0 I I I ' 'T_V '-r V V .1 I the petats--nee had er. vtesatten. 4.- ..ae -.ﬁ.et age. ~R.I_I-es- an _ -having a transit permit ~I.t_!uierV~Ruie§s ' storage iieenee and eaii-iug-upoii the to why the same ought not » respondent by an order dated 29.3 xi!-tat

-5(5), iseami 1*? 0° " .-.

Kamataka Forest ma, agsatea oil in possession petitioaef liI!(l7'0I'd6Nd for tmmﬁseaﬁqn ifwf rmjﬁ--'-at else uetd tut-.. the M... as of the Act whieh retates _ to cutﬁnjg, or damage to the sandal-wood I tvas no such allegation made against the I a pgutiorgeratgga the -first instance: A T'ne_ petitioﬁeri * thiyd respom_lenl+und sought [or- storage -lieenee, 30.l_-2200'4__, it was iufenned "' ttt,-- the 3:-..t.it.i-.:::-.:;-."s amlies.-._.;«..n \.n.ree.'_!_ be eoszsidered; disposal' of the seizure enmeuﬁngs - which - were on. The petitioinet Being; aggrieved by =an_-order_ the second respondent dated prefened anappeale in 'Criminal Appeal Q \----§' before ﬁstriet """

Presiding Oﬂieer, Fast-Truck Co.u1_-_t-g-V, District. The Appellate Court, 3it;7t_2ittt§, t..e apt'-,.....sIl -.e. that the t petitioner is before this -- V' I «L2 trntr--_.....~_ rI....'.:_--- A".'i".....'.".'-Q."_.' ....... '

0. Bl'! he-..t'.1*s.|.I:I¥IIlhg.--;.1twu1uI;nuvfupu.§w_ hppuE3'i3'i" fer 'm3 Counsel §I'tirj"»vtl;eA:.:tJt:titit§i:_er.wouit1jvs'ni$tnit, while reiterating the above :31!' _ 'that: respondents have acted e-.:tsVé:';.!_e e:_sn_Ide1i31g as to whether the pet_itioner"~ a._ permit for oil in its on the petitioner's premises and the possessed by it hsving been noticed, the wh-'titer the wtitiene: ,ee%% 9. s..::t-.ge license to I and on infurtned that the petitioner's nenewai storage licence was pending and that the sandal-wood oil in TV question was a quantity that was ptueured by it when its storage iicenee was eumsnt the "raw--mii.'"-'at Es h'*ld *1 s"-"ti. g n... :.i Il:lIlIl.I IIAAII nu. : 5 1. . ..-':. .. . '''---- 'i "xi u"'ua"'H sun ﬁfﬂuuua yum wuuu ii. eiiu uuvu u_ viulti :_I"'.t;!ItIgt'.1 -iii-Jt:ll'L.I_:, , has-been taken note of end the raised the . question of it ttunssi "l. irrelevegiti -In Lint; the netitii .,n_. '--.--- -r that new on has rfamuuir Praciesh by way of post, the- petitioner in feet, is whether or not if-it was '€i':4"otl';e'r to lel_1_ unanswered. the . eproeeeilin_g's for iieye been initiated reiiulting in the mggmndenet eontiseatiiag the sandal-wooil on; _|_l_1e mile. of i tirnes over -the niaxirnunm peneity ii' any, that , even if the petitioner was guilty of infraction A on .,r.t., petitions or the Act and Rules.

7. The Senior Counsel would point out that from the ~--~inaten'al on record, it isielear that the has not been _a1"i'_0ﬁieii opportunity to expiain its case with regard to non- :3 -:11 :- reqeiremezit "f a "'ar:sit ""T1"uii, ii trarxsit V'iItit!iti7 required for sandal_-weed ori1g_inaling.»i.ri_tIr;gt ".

oil in the petitioner's possession it IVi'I'I\ H jinn'-ul deeter is Utter P!'I.i,l.-_1Ié!.!E in it-:.»i-péI i '13 E I

-sandal-wood for ¢iistiii'stionA.A-tijf*A. the State of Tamilnadu, the quesliorti_ possessed of transit permit really the matter has nnl 'Mann i"It'rII:'-t.;|'.uu.|Vi|v.r'."']I\!: it can-In H I-II-ﬂiil auuitu 'suns U)' I-l&',D _ at ail. The Appeliate eiiiiepportunity of hearing to the pelitiurier_ of violation ul' Section 86 of 'the;Aet.. is since there was no 'clue as 14.: any sI,n.-11 d 'iiuii _aiie"eu iri the first instance. The Appeiiate Court accepted the order of the respondents, even ~ eir-eL1msLa.nees L lhiiuglii-.il is: devoid of reasorns-or {consideration of the 'material 5 r the Amatted feels cf "'9 ease. The IIJU

-u-._ -- 91-7 i _ igrespumients were fuiiy aware that, as on the date of' inspection and seizure of _the~sendul-weal oil, the petitioner's application ' % for renewal of storage -licence» was very much under é in

1...:

I9 .Jl.

t..:....id... _i.i..!;; we; :19 delhult on lhe wt in ccnducling its business in aecorgicnce v--iij::v~.1» aﬁii«.in manner known to law. Mere pcsscassicgix [cf lh1a_ca1jiial4i§ieu;ii::vi:il has been held against the peﬁjicger, " L' 'ruvwv-an I-Inna'.

. . , . , 3.

came 3:: passes an tie. the s9.:s:e*:n '&"W*"'""'~%-'r 3-"!-'. 'J-'8 already stated.

951" wherein this Court has ineld of ,a I'ure_sl produce purchased ......... A I.' 4'..;.1 ' ﬂu. . n5:3,u..I.ar-a-.1 -l'+.',%f._-J er 2-. -,:r:-Jam business-man, a L-m if r' ' . Havin re ard lo the circumstances of 96 '_ e y 3 3 V on hand, lhe Senior Counsel would submit that " mﬁcdown in the saidcase would squarely apply to the i'uci's_c'E' 'the preseiii case.

9. The petitioner was in pussessiun cf material to .!!3. Lhe «,1! was p,I-:l.;eset_l Lrum its yeggdcr in Ultar 'I')_.-..I.-.-I_ --.._-1 ('L FIHHUEII RI 1! re: 'fore, sbsotved of any *'.tt_1e, Rules and the petitioner also having before the respondents even" at --

.' 'u"

an: I of the proceedings eenﬁseatio'n;.of same. The ' respondents have not or V:~tIiei_ntsterial documents that have and the entire evidenee tesﬁa are --t HI seen u was me:

was awith _' 'to storage licence and was no eontrosiersyrias'1"e.s_;Var'dsp_tiieppptrttnsit permit. It is twist that is given the the respondents only to foist a false and . against petitioner in to the i _ it whieh is wholly' illegal and arbitrary. it I ll n r ﬁnhnui-Inn' II-an; fl-rt Qgn _!9m nnl D WV Cvlgg Ii'

-_ upu-v ------ poor:-I it the petitioner's ease the sanciai-wood oii in question was obtained parse! post not 'through. any other means.' -Henee, the transit permit 5 -: 14 :- under the __ hardly apply. Then: 'is no pmvi:_1ion. undqr ' ,t3:_1_;jL:it_li_a_2e_: '' l_h_:;; _:.1 Lrmgil -3 ' uansponarson arrows: weaves. whieiuis%procuse<i%thmua=i» and even if such a{ mi; %isT wngempma, in is the supplier of-the as "main II-ni-nail uuanuu n1 -1: .|:'M\|i1t' " 'III ("nu llll Il'| II HID IJQEJIIUJ, VI.'al:|l"'\-V» .VTYu'IﬂI\i'! Mi lrllol-l'IU"'.&I.Il an'-Ira'-055° i-I-w'aw lu-

_ transit 'appiicalion of the ' peﬁlinnerkes; Appellate Court. and that _I.he on busingss over lh__e years and V has curnsisismiiy its siﬁrage Eicersise, is a I"

I ,------_._ -1- 'IF.-elime- is Q": ,t:I.nmtl n 1.1 _iI_1_g:I.ru_snL 91' V Court in iilercascf oi' Jfhnmjitwmaiu vs. State 'AIR .1991 SC 5I_5, v_vhqre.il is that an-aﬁl done in = pursuance of rights under jun lican_ce,_ when an a??lica:_iaﬁTfG:- §'d'I':IIgI'n'1&l-1 is nan : ct _1u\nu;.|'I.InryI:t\n- l!ll'l'll'Il bun Egg' -: 15 :- to be illegal. By the same token of that it could not be said that the petitioner he the he by possessing the said quantity .-a ._____ ._._ I2 ._.__.._ ._ _- .I_ .-_ 1|..- __-_.__ '.., ,_.-I'l.- ._._l 5... 21;". "'I'1i.'_._£..a SIUIIISU IIUUHUU, WHO" 'I-"U 3II."lC'r'*I_3 ﬂiuﬁul-Uﬂ. DI-l'."bUK. IKUBISLUT maintained in the usueicourseioli '-

1.2, It I sI_1!1d -wood oil an-A consiitutesgt Business of the petitioner and having [and volume of its business, the use of such sandalwood oil nui§Ina\i'- unudu-|'uI I'M: I-|aIdI:a\nnI- nu I no I-uII:I:n.nnr urA_»u_I.uI. uu Isuzu EI.-5|!-llII'.'ll; IIIU IJUIIIIIJIIUI, no usv Ll I. at hail to law in seeicing to carry on its Business in H * The petitioner having applied for renewal theihstoiuge licence and the respondents having taken their 'I._.-_..___ __-1.31-. E V' 'til'1'i_t5 iii Tlﬁi. ﬁﬂﬁsidﬁﬁﬁg 'I116 uuwtu iuurusf, wsum 11'|i.iﬁ'1ii'tiI13 the petitioner that it would becuusidered may alter the disposal of the conﬁscation proceedings, tell the petitioner in a quandary $4! I_I_'n-3 no '1' n¢_:_r cannnl: In--htnnnml In; m_ e .nus.tmsLuing gu_;;_:!'i

--. 'u---------- --:w------ ---- wq---.--------- v-r v----I-r- ------------v--

"'1 ~: 16 :-

sturagu licence in the first instance and ihefnfotri his __would submit that having lo_;thn;" » and--the legal .position-, the petition Vf ._ s13.A11.o stgmshagsguagsreasng has not ' lilud-any stntsxnunt of '-- ii ' 14; p"'i"t'r$iu"i';i. wag!-.1 far v_uni3.3.2008. ' When the matter was up' fsi tln_:_ Senior Advocate was _h__;¢.izi.i..,u.t..- had sought further » ;*ti;ne.ntu«.se»;f.nr¢ the presence ofzs uuiieagun who is Stiiu u: have i * This matter _wasT=pnsssd' o\_rm_'_ and since the Counsel. not make snnppesrauue, "'16 present. .-_.,a. .--- _.. nnnunnulns jam" us

15. In the light ul'_lh__e -sub1_nissions__ madn, it is to be seen i thatlhe mtiliuner had made-_an application for --_renewal of its Q El} _ and consumed wu-

-: I7 :-

storage licence and the same was pending. 4_ v maintains it Register, as un:.ler-the it ' indicate the raw-material ineludingifthe1..igi'gV "nuti¢j.,i1;wrm;i'1V business. ' Having this a matter our 'In V 'J1 Ili' for the respondents to '_ of the claim of I... pe-ti|..it.n_-, 'i1_é:;:jp.t1:e tight .storage licence and the"

quantity V was procured during the eurreney__ tieenee daring whieh it had procured the oit; or rejecting its eontention . i ' ', V i I n that ftm um-ulu. ..nuvuu ail 3;; Q3 nng . .111 \_n_r;|_ \_a_:_ [ \_x_.r;|_ 1 ft l.I.J'.Iy_A.u Ii: 5'-III-II _ -"_!rI'I-run-I rs: nauuuuuan » 'lever previous year's procurement and storedu-nder the " which was issued for the previous' year. The t'aiet..tha:t the application for renewal was pending as on the date lieenee, that the petitioner was not to blame list the same, is an aspect that has been overlooked by the respondents and the

- Lower Court: The farther that even if the petitioner %

-; 18 :-

could -explain the storage of the sandal-wood the petitioner not having the wtition-r has been held guilty' for iopsiiieci, in that, the penaityV:V"'~st3ughi*-. to be eonliscating the oil is vi"ani_n excess the .rnasinium"nenalty that would have v-isited the case of the respondents ink! L1' L11. Ill 1 actionMoVt'-itheiarbitrariness and is not in circumstances. The contention of lhe betitioneis oil had been procured in 1' 'V " .--' ---..L_'-... up .-..:._.-.... 'nun. :un -angina ' the usuau courseut busmeas n} 'In wtﬁ 'me Rows ' thereliore, -the absence of storage licence, the ii A isfvihich -was under consideration by the respondents ta.-t Lh_t the some had been through parcel it u iiorn its vendor in Utter are that i'nii"t'2 been overlooked by the respondents in holding that the sandal- gwood oil was held in store without a storageelicence or that the o u nu.-u-4. n uuuuulnlnnli III!' t\ [I]! anus is 1 -mw-w.meetet.'en.....,e.ennit. a.- ..lLg!I.-.--iI.,._3 5

-1 19 :-

which cannot be sustained as against the Appellate Court having meehanieallyeeaeeeplzeiiiitiieii' e T the respondents in negating A' from a piaia reading Fae jedgsfne-it..a' an--us.-nu:

F-

E

16. In this lightiief. is allowed. Annexures-Q :'_T qnaiéhedi an: directed the . pending appiieaiiun fur renewalpi' Torthwilli and to deal with it in aeeerdanee law. V"

(IV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court