FRANCIS MONTHERO, S/O. SALVADHOOR MONTHERO AND MOHAMMED ARIZ, S/O ALTAF HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, UDUPI DIVISION AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, KUNDAPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants are the Petitioners in W.P. No. 22219 -20/2010. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24 -8 -2010 passed by the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions upholding the order passed by the Authorities below, the Appellants have preferred these writ appeals.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: On receiving the telephonic message that the government timber being illegally transported to the Ambika Saw Mill, Udupi, the Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Technical Assistant to -Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kundapur and the Range Forest Officer, Udupi visited the Ambika Saw Mill, Udupi on 22 -11 -2003 and found fresh Nandi logs unloaded in the Saw Mill yard. When examined the said Nandi logs, there was no clear and visible government hammer marks affixed on any of the logs regarding granting of transport permit. The owner of the Saw Mill was asked to produce the relevant documents. The Saw Mill owner produced a Transit Permit No. 145311 dated 19 -11 -2003 issued by the Koppa Section Forester of Koppa Forest Division. In the permit, it was mentioned that logs were originated and brought from Sy. No. 85/6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Bintravally village. The permit was granted for transportation of silver oak billets, but, what is transported is 26 Nandi logs measuring 9.849 M3 and the said Nandi logs had been transported under the fake permit, in a lorry bearing Registration No. KA -18/4748 which belongs to the first Appellant. The first Appellant sold the lorry, which was involved in the forest offence to the second Appellant on 12 -2 -2004. The Competent Authority seized the lorry. An application was made by the registered owner of the said lorry for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 63 read with Section 71 -G of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The Authorised Officer rejected the said application.

(3.) SRI . K. Ravishankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authority are contrary to law. Without following the procedure prescribed under Section 71 -A and 71 -B of the Karnataka Forest Act, the order impugned has been passed. Though the Respondents have failed to prove that there is any connivance of the owner of the lorry in transporting the said Nandi logs, the Fast Track Court has failed to appreciate the implication of Section 71 -B of the Act. He further contended that the first Appellant is the registered owner of the lorry as on the date of commission of offence, no notice was issued to him before confiscating the vehicle. The Authorised Officer committed an error in confiscating the vehicle without there being any show cause notice to the registered owner. The confiscation of the vehicle is opposed to the principle of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.