Kerala High Court
Authorised Officer And Divisional vs A.H.Basheer on 13 August, 2012
Author: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/22ND SRAVANA 1934
CRP.No. 90 of 2004 ( )
----------------------
CMA.1/1998 of DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
AUTHORISED OFFICER AND DIVISIONAL
FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION, TELLICHERRY.
BY ADV. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.P.MADHAVAN KUTTY
RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:
------------------------
A.H.BASHEER, S/O. T.V.ABOOBACKER HAJEE
ANABAGILU, KASARGOD VILLAGE & TALUK.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
dlk
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
---------------------------------------------
CRP.No.90 of 2004.
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2012.
ORDER
The respondent in CMA.No.1/98 on the file of the District Court, Kasaragod, is the revision petitioner.
2. The respondent, who is the owner of a mini lorry filed the appeal before the District Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the revision petitioner under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, confiscating the vehicle belonging to him.
3. The forest officials who were engaged on patrol duty in Nubat on 24/4/93, saw some miscreants removing logs of wood from the forest area. Seeing the officials, they ran into forest. They were chased and three of them where apprehended. Inspection revealed cutting of certain valuable trees from the forest areas. Custodial interrogation of those apprehended, revealed that teak trees were cut and removed from the forest areas on three occasions and they were transported in a mini lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-14/2014 to a wood factory in Vidhyanagar. CRP. No.90 of 2004 -:2:-
4. Three cases were registered. Search was conducted in the wood company and also in the premises of its owner, from where the teak logs concealed were seized. The mini lorry said to have been involved in transporting the wood was seen in the premises. It was also taken into custody on 24/04/93. The respondent was found to be the owner of the vehicle. He gave statement, admitting that teak logs were transported from Parappa reservation forest in the said vehicle to the wood company at Vidhyanagar. Proceedings were initiated against the offenders including steps for confiscation of the lorry.
5. The case against all other offenders were compounded and penalty ordered was remitted by them. In the confiscation proceedings, notice was issued to the respondents, as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 61A of the Act.
6. Previously, the revision petitioner had passed an order of confiscation which was challenged before the same court in CMA.No.32/1994. That application was allowed, noticing serious lapses in the enquiry. After remand, notice was issued to the respondent and after hearing him, the revision petitioner passed the order of confiscation. CRP. No.90 of 2004 -:3:-
7. The respondent took the matter in appeal again before the District Judge, who heard the appeal and passed the impugned order allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of confiscation passed by the revision petitioner. Against that order, the revision petitioner has come up in revision.
8. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the forest. The impugned order was also perused.
9. The learned District Judge, who heard the appeal found that the enquiry proceedings were strictly in compliance with the directions issued in the remand order. However, it was found by the learned District Judge that, as the enquiry continued after hearing the counsel for the respondent, it was proceeded as if it were only a departmental enquiry wherein, the role of the respondent was over, once he was heard in the matter. The crucial question to be considered was whether the lorry owned by the respondent was used in the transportation of forest produce.
10. As rightly pointed out by the learned District Judge, the enquiry in the confiscation proceedings is regulated by Section 61(b)(1) CRP. No.90 of 2004 -:4:- of the Act. The party proceeded against should be given a notice in writing, enabling him to know the grounds on which the proposal to confiscate has been made. Thus, he should be given an opportunity to make a representation in writing against the grounds of confiscation. Thereafter, the party should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. These procedures have been complied with in the enquiry. But after that, the revision petitioner was satisfied with the materials available to test the veracity of the pleas canvassed by the respondent's counsel at the time of hearing. So notices were ordered against the driver, stated to have been employed by the respondent and also, to the owner of the saw mill and his son. The procedure was conducted by the revision petitioner justifiably as it was only to find out the reliability of the defence set up by the respondent. But, thereafter, the enquiry was followed without any notice to the respondent. The learned District Judge, who could have ordered reconsideration of the materials eschewing the evidence collected behind the back of the revision petitioner for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, however, interfered with the order of confiscation finding that the materials collected to some extent, support the plea of the CRP. No.90 of 2004 -:5:- respondent that he alone was made a scape got in respect of the forest offence committed by that five offenders, who were ultimately left free after remitting a flee bite penalty.
11. I am of the definite view that the learned District Judge after setting aside the impugned order could have remanded the case back to the authorised officer for fresh disposal, after reconsidering the entire materials eschewing the evidence collected behind the back of the respondent and to pass a fresh order.
12. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted back to the authorised officer for fresh disposal, after reconsidering the materials eschewing the evidence collected behind the back of the respondent.
Sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj