SATYA EXPORTS Vs. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.T.Chezhiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent.

(2.) The petitioner, a partnership firm, has filed this writ petition challenging an order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalput, in Criminal Appeal No.111/2008, dated 06.08.2010 in an appeal filed under Section 49D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 49D , the order of the District Judge under sub-Section (1) of Section 59D shall be final and shall be called in question by any Court of law. Thus, the petitioner having not been provided with any remedy under the Act, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order.

(3.) By the impugned order, the Order of Confiscation passed by the first respondent dated 25.01.2008 was confirmed. The petitioner was granted a possession licence by the District Forest Officer, Kancheepuram, for the period 1992-93 to possess 12,454 kgs of sandalwood. By letter dated 03.04.1993, the petitioner applied for renewal of the possession licence for the next year, viz., 1993-94 stating that they have retained the stock at Neelangarai, Chennai. However, the Forest Range Officer, Headquarters, Chennai, found that the petitioner had retained only 6185 kgs of sandalwood and called for an explanation with regard to the shortage of 6269 kgs. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2921 of 1994 in which, an averment was made that the shortage is due to theft in the godown and that they have lodged a complaint in the Thorapakkam Police Station. However, the Inspector of Police, Thorapakkam Police Station, by letter dated 20.03.1994, informed the Forest Ranger, Madras Headquarters Range, that no such complaint was received from the petitioner. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed by directing orders to be passed in accordance with law. An opportunity was granted to the petitioner by memo dated 20.07.1994 to substantiate their claim and explain their shortage.