S DASARATHI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been granted a licence to deal in sandalwood. He was issued a show cause notice on 26.9.1984 requiring him to show cause as to why the quantity of sandalwood with him should not be confiscated for contravention of Rule 8(2) of the A.P Sandalwood (Possession) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the sandalwood Rules') and Rule 7 of the A.P Sandalwood and Red Sanders Transit Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Transit Rules'). The purport of the show cause notice was that he has submitted the statements of stock wrongly and suppressing the correct stocks, he has undertaken illicit transport of sandalwood to Calcutta and the truck came to be seized at Tekkali.

(2.) The petitioner came forward with an explanation to the effect that when the statement of stock was submitted initially, his illiterate labourers have measured the trees and logs in inches and they were treated as centimeters. According to him, the actual stock was eight tonnes and above, if measured in centimeters whereas the wrong measurement and calculation disclosed that it was only three tonnes. Taking the explanation of the petitioner into account, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 16.10.1984 confiscating 3.040 tonnes of sandalwood (heartwood chips) packed in 104 gunny bags. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal was rejected through orders dated 5.6.1990. Complaining that he was not given an opportunity while disposing of the appeal and that various contentions were not dealt with, the petitioner filed A.S No. 48 of 1990 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appeal was allowed through judgment-dated 27.1.1994 and the order of the 2nd respondent was set-aside on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity. The matter was remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh disposal, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

(3.) On receipt of notice of hearing from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner appeared and made his submissions. He reiterated the contentions that were made before the 1st respondent. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed orders dated 31.3.1994 dismissing the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.M.A No. 30 of 1994 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. The appeal was rejected through judgment dated 11.12.1998. Hence this writ petition.