VARKEY ABRAHAM Vs. WILD LIFE PRESERVATION OFFICER THEKKADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is to quash Ext. P9 judgment of the District Judge, Thodupuzha. That judgment was rendered in C.M.A. No. 54/87 filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the Wild Life Preservation Officer, Vallakkadavu confiscating some pieces of teak wood timber and other finished articles under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').

(2.) The facts of the case can be capsulized thus: The Assistant Wild Life Preservation Officer, Vallakkadavu had entertained some doubt about the genuineness of certain piece of teak wood timber, one Almirah, one cot etc. kept in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed title in respect of those goods. However, the officer having not satisfied with the claim, seized those goods under a mahazar. The goods were forwarded to the authorised officer for necessary action. On 25-7-1981 the petitioner filed a petition before the Field Director (Tiger Project), Kottayam praying to release seized goods. However, the goods were not released; on the other hand, the officer ordered confiscation under Section 61A(2) of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter filed a C.M. Appeal before the District Judge as 19/1983 challenging the order of confiscation. That appeal was allowed and the order of confiscation was set aside. It appears, the Department then filed a writ petition before this Court as O.P. No. 2901/85. This Court as per Ext. P3 judgment allowed the authorities to continue further proceedings according to law. Thereafter fresh enquiry was started. Ultimately the authorised officer found that the seized goods are the property of the Government and ordered the confiscation accordingly. That is Ext. P6 order. That order was challenged by the petitioner in C.M. Appeal No. 54/87 under Section 61D of the Act. The 2nd respondent District Judge dismissed the appeal as per Ext. P9. judgment.

(3.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The remedies under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution available to a citizen are distinct and separate. In this connection it is well to be recalled that an order under Art. 226 is appealable under Section 5 of the High Court Act whereas in the case of an order under Article 227 no such appeal will lie before Division Bench. Therefore it is necessary to examine whether the writ petition is sub-stantitally coming within the purview of Arts. 226 and 227. This can be done only by perusing the pleadings and relief sought for by the petitioner. The substantial prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext. P9 judgment of the District Judge by issuance of a writ of certiorari. There is no particular pleading in the writ petition pointing to invoke the Power of Superintendance of the High Court under Art. 227. After hearing the arguments and after examining pleadings and relief sought for in the writ petition, I am satisfied, this petition substantially comes within the purview of Art. 226 of the Constitution.