ANU AMBRAILE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUVALLUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.25107 of 2007 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the first respondent/appellate authority, the District Collector, Tiruvallur, dated 29.1.2007, holding that a part of the order of District Forest Officer dated 16.3.2004, is not valid. That is to the extent of cancellation of registration mark by the District Forest Officer as the same was not confirmed by the District Collector as per the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968. However, as far as the claim of the petitioner to decide the same on merit is concerned, the same was rejected on the ground that cancellation of licence is one of the grounds for confiscation of red sanders, against which appeal has been filed before the District Court and therefore, the matter is sub judice.

(2.) THE District Court, in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2007 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.19105 of 2009, who is also the petitioner in W.P.No.25107of 2007, passed the judgment on 4.8.2009 holding that the red sanders seized were covered under the valid licence possessed by the petitioner and the seizure was without notice and cancellation of petitioner's licence by the District Forest Officer is not correct and that the petitioner did not indulge in any illegal exports. THE said W.P.No.19105 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner for direction against the respondents to return to the petitioner the red sanders wood musical instrument parts weighing about 7069 kgs. lying in the hands of the District Forest Officer in compliance of the judgment of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur dated 4.8.2009 in C.A.No.36 of 2007.

(3.) THE writ petitioner in W.P.No.19105 of 2009, who is the first respondent in W.P.No.25895 of 2009 has filed counter affidavit, wherein the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised on the ground that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is not a party to the appeal and he cannot file the writ petition challenging the judgment of the Fast Track Court. It is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had never involved in the proceedings either when seizure was made or confiscation order was passed. It is also stated that the judgment passed by the judicial forum, which is a statutory appellate authority, has become final and aggrieved by such judgment of criminal court, no writ petition will lie. It is also stated that the learned Additional District Judge found that the confiscation order passed was without any basis and directed for the return of stock. It is stated that even in the appeal filed in respect of cancellation of possession of licence, the District Collector held that in respect of cancellation of licence and confiscation, it is for the Court to decide, while holding that the cancellation of possession licence by the District Forest Officer is unsustainable in law. That apart, it is stated that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19105 of 2009 obtained possession licence for holding stocks of red sanders wood musical instrument parts and not for red sanders logs and therefore, the allegation of any offence on the face of it, is not correct. It is stated that the petitioner only transported wood musical instrument parts under necessary permit issued by the District Forest Officer in Form No.6 and the possession licence was reviewed from time to time after periodical inspection. It is also stated that even otherwise, the term, 'permit' would attract the timber and musical instrument parts would not come under the term, 'timber'. It is denied that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court has no jurisdiction to release the seized property and when once confiscation order was held to be invalid, the release of stocks would follow.