STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. JITENDRAKUMAR AMULAKH MISTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners - State of Gujarat and another, to quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dtd.29/6/2007 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajpipla at Narmada in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996 (Old Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2001).

(2.) PROCEEDINGS were initiated against the respondents for having illegal teakwood and running sawmill under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and Bombay Forest Rules. That the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Rajpipla passed an order under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 to confiscate two machines used for running sawmill as well as 11 teakwood. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Dy.Conservator of Forest, respondents herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2001 before the learned Sessions Judge, Narmada, which was subsequently renumbered as Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2006. It was specifically pointed out before the learned Sessions Court that the respondents were running sawmill without license. The learned appellate court did not considered the same solely on the ground that whether licence was required or not, is not mentioned in the order passed by the Dy.Conservator of Forest and consequently the learned Sessions Court by the impugned judgement and order dtd.29/6/2007 allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Dy.Conservator of Forest, Rajpipla dtd.22/1/2001 confiscating two machines used for sawmill for running sawmill as well as 11 pieces of teakwood. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court, petitioners - State of Gujarat and another have preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned appellate court and considering Rule 88 of the Bombay Forest Rules, it cannot be disputed that there is prohibition to establish saw-pit and/or to run sawmill without previous sanction in writing of the concerned Range Forest Officer. As such, as the same is provided under the statutory Rules, the learned appellate court ought to have considered the same though it might not have been reflected in the order passed by the Dy.Conservator of Forest. Unfortunately, the learned appellate court has not considered the same mainly and solely on the ground that whether such an licence is required, is not mentioned in the order passed by the Dy.Conservator of Forest. Under the circumstances and in view of the specific provisions under the Bombay Forest Rules, more particularly Rule 88, the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court cannot be sustained and as the said aspect has not been considered by the learned appellate court, the matter is required to be remanded to the learned appellate court for considering the same in accordance with law and on merits and considering the provisions of the Bombay Forest Rules as well as Indian Forest Act.