Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026
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: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 24822 of 2025
(In the matter of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Santosh Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Manas Ranjan Dhal, Adv.
-versus-
For Opp. Party(s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 03.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 09.01.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025, and the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh in O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024-25, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:
Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(i) The petitioner had purchased a tractor along with a trolley by availing finance from a private financial institution. The said tractor-trolley was duly registered, the tractor bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6493 and the trolley bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6545, and the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.
(ii) The petitioner had handed over his vehicle to the driver at the relevant point of time under a bona fide belief and in good faith, having regard to the past conduct of the said driver and the smooth management of the vehicle.
(iii) On 24.12.2023 at about 2.00 p.m., upon receiving information from a reliable source that a tractor loaded with sal logs was being transported from a mango field in village Barpali, the Forester along with staff of Barpali Beat proceeded to the spot.
(iv) Upon inspection, the tractor bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6493 along with the trolley bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6545 was found loaded with nine numbers of sal logs without any hammer impression.
(v) On noticing the presence of the forest staff, the driver of the tractor fled from the spot. No supporting or transit documents were found at the spot. Thereafter, the Forest Guard of Barpali Beat seized the aforesaid vehicle along with the sal logs and brought the same to the Range Officer Camp, Khandapada, where the seized articles were kept under zima for safe custody.
(vi) On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, a U.D. Case bearing No. 12 of 2023-24 was registered in Khandapada Range.
Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(vii) Pursuant to issuance of notice to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, wherein it was alleged that a forest offence had been committed in violation of Rules 4, 12 and 14 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, punishable under Section 21 thereof, and that the vehicle was involved in the commission of such forest offence attracting the provisions of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(viii) On the basis of the investigation report submitted by the Forester, Khandapada Section (Opposite Party No. 4), and the recommendation of Opposite Party No. 3, the earlier U.D. Case No. 12 of 2023-24 was converted into O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024-25 and a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 was initiated before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh (Opposite Party No. 2).
(ix) Upon recording the statements of the forest staff of Barpali Beat House and the Forester and Ranger of Khandapada Forest Range, and on consideration of the connected records, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order dated 13.05.2025 confiscating the petitioner's vehicle under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(x) Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation dated 13.05.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nayagarh, being F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025. The learned appellate court, by order dated 12.08.2025, dismissed the said appeal, holding that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not sufficient to warrant interference with the order of confiscation.
Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20
(xi) Aggrieved by the orders dated 13.05.2025 and 12.08.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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 orders passed by both the authorities under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 are erroneous, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law, and as such, are liable to be quashed.
(ii) The authorities below, while passing the impugned orders, have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in proper perspective and have proceeded on an erroneous approach of law.
(iii) The Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 provide the manner of enquiry and disposal of forest offences. In spite of the clear mandate of the said Rules, Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 have neither prepared the case record nor conducted the enquiry in accordance with the Rules, 1980. Therefore, the prosecution case is liable to be quashed in limine.
(iv) Even though Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980, framed under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, provides that no enquiry may be held by a Forester in cases other than offences under Sections 66 and 67 of the said Act, in the present case it has been alleged that the offence was committed under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, for which the enquiry ought to have been conducted by an officer not below the rank of Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 Range Officer. However, the entire enquiry has been conducted by the Forester (Opposite Party No. 4). Therefore, the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 4 of the said Rules. Hence, the entire enquiry being perfunctory and without authority of law cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
(v) Even assuming, though not admitting, that the vehicle was involved in the alleged offence, the prosecution ought to have established that the place from which the timber was allegedly removed formed part of a forest area by proper identification and demarcation through the Revenue Authority or the competent authority of the Forest Department. However, the prosecution has neither prepared a spot map through the Revenue Authority or the competent authority of the Forest Department, nor indicated the plot number, khata number or the name of the revenue village, nor exhibited any Government notification to show that the said plot or area had been declared as Reserve Forest. In the absence of such materials, it cannot be said that the seized timber was loaded on the vehicle from a forest area, and consequently the provision under Section 2(1)(g) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 would not be attracted so as to constitute an offence under Section 56 of the said Act.
(vi) The learned court below has held that the burden of proof lies upon the opposite party/present petitioner to conclusively establish his innocence and to show that he had taken all precautions to prevent his vehicle from being involved in transportation of illicit materials. However, it is a settled principle of law that the initial duty and Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 burden lie upon the prosecution to establish a prima facie case. In the present case, except for the seizure of the vehicle, the prosecution has failed to discharge such burden so as to establish a prima facie case.
(vii) The learned lower court has failed to assess the allegations and the depositions conjointly while arriving at its decision. According to P.Ws. 1 and 2, on receipt of information on 24.12.2023 while they were in Khandapada Beat that timber was being illegally loaded on a tractor, they proceeded to the spot. Near the mango field of village Barpali, they found the tractor loaded with sal timber, and no person was present at the spot. Thereafter, they seized the vehicle along with nine numbers of sal logs in presence of witnesses and brought the same to the Range Office, Khandapada. Thus, the prosecution evidence itself establishes that no act was committed inside the forest area and that the vehicle was merely found loaded with nine numbers of sal logs near the mango field of village Barpali.
(viii) The petitioner was examined as O.P.W. 1 and deposed that the tractor was ordinarily used for transportation of sand, stone chips and bricks, and that he had instructed the driver accordingly. On the date of the alleged incident, he had handed over the vehicle to the driver for bringing paddy and had gone to Bhubaneswar along with his wife for her medical treatment. He further deposed that he had no knowledge about the loading of nine numbers of sal logs in his tractor by the driver. After seizure of the vehicle, he submitted a written report before the Range Officer, Khandapada Range on 27.12.2023. Thus, the petitioner has clearly established that the vehicle was not used by him Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 for any forest offence and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent such offence.
(ix) The materials on record reveal that the seized timber, namely nine numbers of sal logs, was neither brought from any forest area by damaging any sal tree nor was any person present at the time of loading of the timber on the petitioner's vehicle. The seizure made under Section 52 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 is illegal inasmuch as the logs were seized outside any designated forest area, without any evidence of commission of a forest offence and without valid marking of the seized property.
(x) Since the logs were found outside the forest boundary and no damage was found within any forest area, there is no proof linking the seized timber to any illegal felling. It is also evident from the case record that the timber seized from the petitioner's vehicle was not brought from any forest area. Therefore, in the absence of the essential ingredients of an offence under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, coupled with the absence of any involvement of the owner and the fact that the alleged incident took place without the knowledge of the petitioner, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the tractor and trolley are liable to be released, having no involvement in any forest offence.
(xi) It is well settled in law that when the legislature mandates that a statutory authority must discharge its duties in a particular manner, it is incumbent upon such authority to do so in the manner stipulated by the statute or not at all. This principle has been reiterated by the Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 Supreme Court in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab1, wherein it has been held that where an action is taken without jurisdiction, even an order which is otherwise conclusive is subject to judicial review. Jurisdictional errors have been classified into two categories, namely, where an order is passed wholly without jurisdiction, and secondly, where though the authority possesses jurisdiction, such jurisdictional error is committed while exercising the same.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh Forest Division is based on illegal transportation of forest produce, namely nine numbers of sal logs measuring 0.575 cubic metres, involving the tractor bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6493, which was used in the commission of the forest offence. The said order of confiscation has been duly affirmed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025 and, therefore, the confiscation is legal and justified.
(ii) It is submitted that the forest staff seized the vehicle as it was found transporting nine numbers of sal logs without any hammer impression and without a valid Transit Permit. Consequently, a confiscation 1 (2008) 1 SCC 728.
Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 was initiated in accordance with law.
(iii) It is further submitted that the case record was duly prepared and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Forester and the final enquiry was conducted by the Range Officer, Khandapada Range. Hence, the enquiry cannot be termed as perfunctory or illegal.
(iv) It is submitted that transportation of forest produce or timber without prior permit or hammer impression is illegal, irrespective of whether the land from which it was transported is situated inside or outside a Reserve Forest, and such transportation attracts seizure and confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(v) It is submitted that the owner of the vehicle failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent his vehicle from being used for transportation of illicit forest produce. The owner also failed to establish that he had taken all necessary steps to prevent commission of the offence and, therefore, is liable for the acts committed using his vehicle.
(vi) It is submitted that the forest produce was found loaded in the vehicle without any hammer impression or valid legal documents relating to its felling or transportation, which by itself constitutes an offence and justifies seizure and confiscation under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
(vii) It is further submitted that the judgment dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025, Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 confirming the order dated 13.05.2025 passed in O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024-25 by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh Division, does not call for any interference. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
6. At the outset, it is reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not appellate in nature. This Court does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the impugned action is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, perversity, or patent illegality.
7. Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 authorises seizure and confiscation of forest produce and the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of a forest offence. This power is not unqualified. Under Section 56(1), seizure can be effected only when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce. Under Section 56(2-a), confiscation may be ordered only upon the authorised officer recording satisfaction that a forest offence has in fact been committed. Confiscation thus presupposes establishment of the commission of a forest offence in the statutory sense and not merely detection of an irregularity.
8. Confiscation under Section 56 entails serious civil consequences, including deprivation of property. Though such proceedings are Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 distinct from criminal prosecution and are not governed by the standard of proof applicable to a criminal trial, the statutory scheme nevertheless mandates that the commission of a forest offence must be clearly established before the confiscatory power can be exercised.
9. The principal challenge in the present case relates to compliance with Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980. The Rule permits a Forester to conduct only a preliminary enquiry and mandates that, except in cases relating to offences under Sections 66 and 67 of the Act or where the offence is compounded, the enquiry into a forest offence shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Range Officer. The statutory scheme thus restricts the role of the Forester to the preliminary stage and vests the authority to conduct the substantive enquiry, forming the basis of confiscation, exclusively in the Range Officer.
10. From the record, it is evident that the detection, seizure, recording of statements, preparation of the seizure list, and collection of foundational materials were undertaken by the Forester and subordinate staff. The subsequent involvement of the Range Officer was substantially predicated upon the materials so collected. This Court is of the view that jurisdictional compliance cannot be cured by subsequent endorsement. Where the statute prescribes both the authority and the manner of enquiry, initiation and substantial conduct of the enquiry by an authority lacking statutory competence goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the proceeding. Such post-
Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 facto involvement cannot validate an enquiry which was initiated and substantially conducted by an authority lacking statutory competence.
11. The appellate authority has proceeded on an assumption of compliance with Rule 4, without examining whether the enquiry, in substance, conformed to the statutory mandate. Such an approach is legally unsustainable, as compliance with jurisdictional requirements cannot be presumed and must be demonstrably established from the record.
12. The confiscation order further proceeds on the premise that transportation of sal logs without hammer impression or Transit Permit, by itself, attracts Section 56 of the Act. While violation of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 may constitute an offence punishable under those Rules, confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 is not attracted by every transit violation. The authorised officer must record satisfaction that a forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce. A breach of transit regulations, without proof of a forest offence, cannot automatically metamorphose into a confiscable offence under Section
56.
13. In the present case, the prosecution evidence itself discloses that the vehicle was intercepted near a mango field in village Barpali and not within any notified forest area. The record does not disclose preparation of a spot map by a competent authority, identification of the plot number, khata number or revenue village, or production of any Government notification to establish that the area constituted Page 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 forest land. In the absence of such material, the conclusion that the seized timber originated from a forest area remains unsupported. Mere reliance on the definition of "forest produce" under Section 2 of the Act cannot dispense with the statutory requirement of establishing commission of a forest offence as a condition precedent for confiscation under Section 56.
14. The appellate court has observed that once involvement of the vehicle is shown, the burden shifts to the owner under Section 56(2-c). While the statutory protection under Section 56(2-c) places a burden on the owner to establish absence of knowledge and due diligence, such burden arises only after the authorised officer records satisfaction under Section 56(2-a) that a forest offence has been committed. In the present case, except for seizure and absence of Transit Permit or hammer impression, no material has been placed to demonstrate commission of a forest offence as contemplated under the Act. The initial statutory threshold has therefore not been crossed.
15. The prosecution evidence further reveals that no person was found at the spot, no act of felling or damage to any forest was detected, and the source of the timber was not established. The driver fled from the spot and no material connects the act of loading of timber to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the inference of a forest offence rests on conjecture rather than statutory satisfaction founded on evidence.
16. While mens rea is not an essential ingredient for confiscation, the statute does not authorise confiscation merely on the basis of ownership of the vehicle. There must be some reasonable material Page 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 linking the vehicle to the commission of a forest offence. A vehicle is often a means of livelihood for its owner, and its confiscation carries serious civil consequences. The safeguards built into Section 56 would lose their meaning if confiscation were to follow automatically upon every transit irregularity.
17. The impugned orders proceed on the assumption that absence of a Transit Permit alone is determinative. Such an approach does not accord with the statutory scheme of Section 56, which mandates satisfaction regarding commission of a forest offence as a condition precedent to confiscation.
V. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle has been ordered without due adherence to the statutory requirements governing enquiry and confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The authorities have proceeded on an erroneous understanding of Section 56, without first establishing the commission of a forest offence as a condition precedent.
19. The orders dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum- Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh in O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024-25 and dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025, therefore, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.
20. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned orders are hereby quashed. The confiscation of the petitioner's tractor bearing Page 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-Jan-2026 16:26:20 Registration No. OD-25-L-6493 and trolley bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6545 is set aside.
21. The Opposite Parties are directed to release the seized vehicle forthwith, if not required in connection with any other proceeding in accordance with law.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan., 2026/-.
Page 15