SALIM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner in O.P.8243/1993-F is the appellant. In the Original Petition he. questioned the validity of the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta while disposing of CMA37/1990 filed under S.61D of the Kerala Forest Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition taking the view that the District Judge while exercising the appellate power under S.61D of the Act can also exercise the inherent power to remand the case to the authorised officer for fresh disposal. This view is under attack in this appeal.

(2.) Writ petitioner appellant before us is a registered dealer in wooden furniture. On getting information that teak wood and rose wood timber were illicitly collected by the writ petitioner from Reserve Forest, forest officials searched the premises of the writ petitioner. Sawn timber and unfinished furniture found in the premises were seized by the forest officers. On the basis that writ petitioner could not produce authentic records for the possession of the timber, steps were taken to confiscate the same as provided by S.61A of the Act. Authorised Officer, by Ext. P6 order dated 10-11-1990, confiscated the entire seized goods. Writ petitioner challenged the said order in CMA 37/1990 before the District. Judge, Pathanamthitta. Learned District Judge by judgment dated 18-3-1993 came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the authorised officer was against all fundamental norms of judicial proceedings. Consequently the order of the authorised officer was set aside and the case was remanded to him to proceed with the same in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner appellant raised two contentions before us. They are: that the District Judge, exercising the appellate power under S.61D of the Act, has no power to remand the matter to the authorised officer for fresh disposal and that on the facts and circumstances of this case the learned District Judge was not justified in remanding the matter to the authorised officer. We shall proceed to deal with these arguments in detail.