FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED, FOREST DIVISION, BRAMHAPURI, THROUGH ASSISTANT MANAGER-2, FDCM LIMITED, BRAMHAPURI, TAHSIL BRAMHAPURI, DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR Vs. PRAKASH MALLESH CHERAKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 01/08/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur thereby setting aside the order dated 22/03/2016 passed by the Authorised Officer and Assistant Manager, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, Brahmapuri (hereinafter referred to as 'FDCM Limited' for short) directing confiscation of the seized vehicles, i. e. one tractor and one trolley bearing Registration Nos. MH-34/L/926 and MH-34//2309 respectively, on the ground that these two vehicles, belonging to respondent no. 1, were used for illegal transportation of teak wood and other cut wood illegally obtained through illegal felling of teak and other trees in the forest of FDCM Limited, Bramhapuri.

(3.) There is an objection taken to the maintainability of this writ petition by the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1. He has invited my attention to Section 61G of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Act' for short), which lays down that any order passed by the Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 61D of the Forest Act shall be final and that no other Court, notwithstanding anything contained contrary in any law, shall have jurisdiction to make order with regard to the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of seized property including the seized vehicle. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the bar of jurisdiction under Section 61G is not applicable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is extraordinary in it's nature and which is required to be exercised when a patent illegality is committed in passing the order by a judicial or quasi judicial authority. According to him, patent illegality as well as perversity both have been committed in the present case while passing the impugned order.