TAHERBHAI SAKIR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and under the provisions of the Bombay Forest Rules for the prayer that the impugned orders at Annexures-A, B & C passed by the authorities may be quashed and set aside and the licence of the petitioner may be permitted to be operated on the grounds stated in detail in the memo of petition.

(2.) IT is contended that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are arbitrary and suffers from the vice of malafide. IT is also contended that the respondent authorities have committed an error in cancelling the saw mill licence on the basis of inadmissible evidence. IT is contended that it ought to have been considered that the petitioner has been carrying on business for about 15 years and, therefore, the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal. IT is also contended that the employees of the petitioner, who are caught, were threatened and their statements are recorded under pressure and duress, which has not been appreciated.

(3.) LEARNED A.G.P., Mr.Patel referred to the impugned orders and submitted that three authorities have passed the orders giving concurrent findings with regard to illegal cutting of the woods, which have been brought from the State of M.P. He referred to the papers and submitted that as per conditions of the licence, before such cutting could take place in the saw mill, necessary documents are required to be produced and verified, which is not done. He submitted that as can be seen from the statements recorded, earlier there was a talk with the petitioner and, thereafter, the woods have been brought to the saw mill for the purpose of cutting suggesting involvement of the petitioner in the offence. He submitted that the submission with regard to the panchnama or the opportunity also may not be accepted as the panchnama has been drawn in the presence of the petitioner and it has never been demanded though the petitioner has been represented by the lawyer before the authorities. He also submitted that the woods have been brought from the M.P. for the purpose of cutting to the saw mill of the petitioner and when they have been caught red handed, such contentions have been made but the statements of the witnesses including the owner of the Tempo and others clearly suggest about the involvement of the petitioner, who is owner of the saw mill. He submitted that it cannot be suggested that he cannot be attributed with any further role in bringing these woods when to his knowledge, the woods have been brought from M.P. for the purpose of cutting to his saw mill. He also pointedly referred to the order passed in Appeal by the Conservator of Forests, Vadodara as well as the order passed by the Deputy Secretary in Revision. He submitted that the present petition may not be entertained as the offences under the Forest Act are required to be dealt with seriously without any sympathy.