Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The prosecution story in brevity as revealed from the record is that the offending vehicle was seized from the proposed reserve forest while it was lifting Murram. The Forster, Chandikhole Section seized the offending vehicle and booked UD Case keeping the seized articles in his custody. Subsequently, OR Case No.47-D of 2011-12 was initiated and the offending vehicle along with the seized articles Murram was directed to be confiscated under Section 56 of the Act vide order dated 23rd November, 2011 (Annexure-7) passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Cuttack Division. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred FAO No.132 of 2011, which was also dismissed vide order under Annexure-10. Hence, this writ petition has been filed assailing the orders under Annexures-7 and 10.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that from the seizure list, it appears that only 5 Cft. of Murram was seized from the offending vehicle. If it is spread over the trolley, it is very difficult to ascertain its quantity. He further submits that Murram, being a minor forest produce, no TT permit under the provisions of Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules 1980 (for brevity ' OTT Rules') is required if it is transported within the district in view of the provision under Rule 5 of the said Rules. He further submits that there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the Murram was seized from a forest area. No document could be filed by the forest officials that the spot from which the offending vehicle was seized was declared as a forest. It is further submitted that a concocted story has been made out to seize and confiscate the offending vehicle, which belongs to the Petitioner.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and contends that the driver of the offending vehicle categorically admitted in his statement recorded by the Authorized Officer that he had left the Tractor inside the forest area. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was seized while being loaded with Murram. The forest guards and Madhav Chandra Nayak, the Forester of the Asia Charinangala proposed reserve forest was recorded. They have stated in their statement that they detected the labourers were loading Murram in the offending vehicle. Seeing the forest officials, all of them fled away. On assessment of evidence and materials on record, the Authorized Officer and learned District Judge, Cuttack came to hold that the offending vehicle was seized from forest area. Since the finding has been arrived on assessment of evidence, this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, should be slow in interfering with the same. He drew attention to the provision under Section 2-g of the Act which defines 'forest produce'. Clause-(d) of Section 2-g of the Act provides that, surface oil, rock, sand and minerals including limestone, laterite; mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries are forest produce. Murram being a mineral is a forest produce and was being loaded on the offending vehicle without any TT permit, when seized. Hence, a forest offence has been committed. There is no illegality in the impugned orders under Annexures-7 and 10. The offending vehicle was loaded with Murram and was seized while the same was standing in the proposed forest violating Rule 4 of the Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 OTT Rules. As such, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, should be dismissed.

11. A bleak argument is made that it is highly improbable to seize only Murram, more particularly when allegation is made that Murram was being loaded in the offending vehicle. Only because the tools used for loading the Murram were not seized, it cannot be said that no forest offence has been committed.

12. On a cumulative assessment of the materials available on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the orders under Annexures-7 and 10. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, Designation: Junior Stenographer Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 18-Apr-2024 18:08:50 stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.