K RAJA Vs. DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he is running a Saw Mill in the name of Venkateswara Saw Mill for more than 25 years. The respondents herein granted permission and license to run the Saw Mill and the same is renewed periodically. From the date of granting license, the petitioner is purchasing the timbers from the dealers, sellers and wholesalers with valid bills for processing. It is usual to keep unprocessed round timber which was purchased through valid bills in the yard along with sawn timber and waste wood. From the date of granting license the petitioner herein is running the Saw Mill as per the terms and conditions as stipulated in the license. The petitioner further submits that while so some of the persons including son-in-law to the petitioner viz., Ponnuvel are alleged to have cut the trees existing at the Forest land located at Chinnasalem to Nainarpalayam Road and on coming to know about the said information, the second respondent on inspection, is alleged to have found two persons cutting the trees existing at the forest and two others were accompanying along with them to load the woods in a TATA Ace vehicle. At that juncture, the second respondent herein had arrested two persons and registered a complaint in STOR No.3 of 2014 under Section 21(b) & (c), 35(b), 36 r/w 56(a), (b), (c), (d) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 and Rule 10 of Timber Transmit Act against the petitioner herein and others. The petitioner further submits that the second respondent herein falsely implicated the petitioner herein by stating that the petitioner herein induced the other accused to commit the said occurrence. Under such circumstances, the petitioner herein filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.12731 of 2014 and the same was granted by order dated 16.05.2014.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that in the petition for anticipatory bail, the second respondent herein also did not give any explanation about the role of the petitioner in the above said occurrence. Under those circumstances only, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Moreover, being father-in-law to the A4 in the above case, the petitioner herein was implicated as accused. Under such circumstances, the second respondent in his proceedings dated 13.04.2014 issued a letter by calling for explanation from the petitioner herein about the details regarding stocks regarding timbers existing at the premises of the petitioner's saw mill. Further, the second respondent herein in the said letter directed the petitioner herein to submit his explanation along with the bills and invoices about the timbers which exists at the premises of the saw mill on or before 16.05.2014. The petitioner further submits that after receipt of the said notice, the petitioner herein submitted copies of the bill and invoices for the stock timbers before the second respondent through advocates and the petitioner's representatives. After receipt of the bills and invoices, the second respondent herein asked the presence of the petitioner herein before the second respondent on 16.05.2014 and as such, the petitioner also represented along with his representatives. The second respondent herein recorded the explanation of the petitioner and received the xerox copies of the entire documents and bills after comparing the same with the original. Subsequent to that the second respondent on 16.05.2014 reported that they will take appropriate steps on the statements made before the second respondent.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that on 17.02.2014, the second respondent without considering the statements and bills submitted before them, issued the impugned order by closing the saw mill by stating that despite notice to submit the records with respect of the stock records, the petitioner has not tendered the same to the respondents herein. The petitioner further submits that subsequent to the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner herein made several representations along with bills and vouchers with regards to purchase and sale of the timbers, but the respondents herein, so far for more than four months, did not consider the same and thereby the petitioner is not able to run the saw mill. The petitioner further submits that so far, he is not able to understand why the respondent is keeping the saw mill belonging to the petitioner under lock and seal. The petitioner herein also made so many representations requesting the respondent to consider bills and vouchers and review the order dated 17.05.2014, but the respondents herein did not consider the same. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.