VARGHESE JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Divisional Forest Officer dismissed a petition submitted by the petitioners under S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 for release of a jeep bearing registration No. KLO 2362. Petitioners have now approached this Court for a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to release the jeep under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Range Officer, Flying Squared, Kothamangalam and other officers, while conducting night patrolling along Chathamattom-Paingottoor Road on 20.11.1995, found the jeep No. KLO 2362 loaded with timber at about 7.30 pm. Since the vehicle was driven away in high speed, Flying Squad could not seize the vehicle. On enquiry, it was revealed that the vehicle was owned by petitioners. They proceeded to the residence of the petitioners early morning on 21.11.1995 and took one Jose in to custody. On questioning him, it was revealed that he was indulged in illicit transportation of forest produce. It was revealed that timber was unloaded at Thekkedath Saw Mill, Thodupuzha. The forest authorities then seized the timber from the yard of Thekkedath Saw Mill, and drew up a mahazar. Authorities were convinced that petitioners had committed forest offence and proceedings were initiated against petitioners under S.61A of the Kerala Forest Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer was also convinced that the vehicle was used for illicit transportation of forest produce. Under the above mentioned circumstances, third respondent rejected the request of petitioner for release of the jeep under S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) The main contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is that while issuing the impugned order, third respondent failed to understand the scope and object of S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act. According to him, there is total non application of mind by the third respondent. It is his case petitioners have not committed any offence under the Act and third respondent has acted on misconceived facts. Counsel submits the stand taken by third respondent that he would not release the vehicle is arbitrary and against the very purpose, and spirit of S.53 of the Act.