STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. A K RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25-2-1999 made in W. P. No. 3648 of 1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under : the first respondent is the registered owner of Tata Benz Lorry bearing Registration No. TN-38-Z-0327. On 14-9-1996 at 11. 00 a. m. , the Forest Officers intercepted the lorry near Bhavani Siriyampalayam check post and found that a quantity of 100 kgs. of Sandalwood was being transported. A show cause notice, in compliance of Section 49-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, was issued to the owner of the lorry as well as to the persons who were travelling in the lorry calling for explanation on 26-9-1996. The first respondent submitted his written explanation on 4-10-1996 denying knowledge of the alleged illicit transportation of Sandalwood. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent, the second respondent, by proceedings dated 4-10-1996, finding that it is not enough for the owner of the vehicle to say that he had no knowledge or connivance, and that he and his agent, namely the Driver have not proved that they have taken reasonable and necessary precautions against such use of the vehicle for the alleged offence, confiscated the said lorry, sandalwood weighing 100 Kgs. and other articles found in the lorry. (1) Even though an appeal was prelerred against the said order dated 4-10-'996 before the third respondent herein, viz. , the appellate authority, by order dated 25-2-1997, confirmed the order of the second respondent. (2) Hence, the first respondent preferred w. P. No. 3648 of 1997 for issue of a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second and third respondents herein relating to their orders dated 4-10-1996 and 25-2-1997 respectively, to quash the same and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to release the vehicle of the first respondent seized on 14-9-1996. (3) The Forest Department resisted the writ petition placing reliance on Ss. 49-A and 49-B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act and also a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 4-12-1995 made in W. A. No. 1296 of 1995. (4) However, the learned single Judge, placing reliance on Assistant Forest Conservator v. Sharad Ramachandra Kale, (1998)1 SCC 48 : (AIR 1998 SC 2927) allowed, the writ petition by order dated 25-2-1999 and set aside the orders of the second and third respondents herein dated 4-10-1996 and 25-2-1997 respectively. Hence the present writ appeal by the Forest Department.

(3.) MR. V. S. Sethuraman, learne'd Special Government Pleader appearing for the forest Department brought to our notice that the ratio laid down in Assistant Forest conservator v. Sharad Ramachandra Kale (AIR 1998 SC 2927), referred supra, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that in the said decision, the order of confiscation was set aside as the Forest Department relied upon Section 52 of the Indian Forest act, a reading of which would clearly reveal that no liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle to discharge his burden.