DUGGIREDDY VENKATA REDDY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned single Judge has noted the facts of the case in his judgment as follows :- "The writ affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that he is the owner of a bus bearing R.T.O. Registration No. TNA 579 plying between Papinenipalli to Markapur. It is further alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit that on 17-3-1986 at about 9 p.m. when the bus was plying on its regular route, it was stopped by the Forest Official and found 0.25 cubic meters to Teak and 0.047 Cubic Metres of Battagenupu pieces in the bus. It is further stated by the petitioner that while the said bus was stopped at some bus stop, a passenger travelling in it calmly and quietly put forest produce in the bus even without the knowledge of the bus conductor and the bus driver and the said forest produce was recovered by the Forest Officials. It was further stated by the petitioner that he was not present in the bus at the relevant time, he has no knowledge regarding the forest produce found in the bus. In spite of this fact the Divisional Forest Officer initiated proceedings of confiscation under S. 44(A) of the Forest Act and he ordered accordingly. Against the said order, the petitioner herein filed an appeal bearing No. 44 of 1989 before the District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. The learned District Judge found that the offence is of a trivial nature, and, therefore, ordered that the confiscation was not proper and directed the prosecuting authorities i.e., the forest officials to compound the offence as per the provisions of S. 59 of the A.P. Forest Act. The District Judge further directed that the compounding fee should be levied four times of the value of the forest produce found in the bus. Accordingly, the Divisional Forest Officer assessed the value of the aforesaid forest goods found in the bus at Rs. 6,002.00 and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to pay the compounding fee to an extent of Rs. 24,008.00. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. "After recording the facts, he has said, "I heard both the counsel at length" and disposed of the writ petition with the following : "Looking into the facts and circumstances involved in this case, this Court holds that as a matter of fact there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned District Judge, but, looking into the fact that the offence is of 1986 and the petitioner has been sufficiently penalised by attending the Court and office for about 9 years, this Court exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and directs that the compounding fee be levied three times the value of the forest produce as against four times as directed by the learned District Judge." It is obvious that there is an error in the approach of the learned single Judge in introducing the element of delay in disposal of the proceeding, when he was sitting in judicial review of the order of the learned District Judge and particularly when learned District Judge had already exercised his powers in accordance with law and disposed of the proceedings. Any element of delay in the proceedings thus for reducing the quantum of penalty was not available to the petitioner-appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Once the basis for the learned single Judge's exercise of discretion is not found valid, there is absolutely no application of mind and there is no judicial order as such in the matter by the Court in the proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order for the said reason is fit to be set aside. The courses however which we can adopt are (1) that we ourselves examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned District Judge or (2) we remit the case for a further and fresh hearing of the matter under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We are adopting the second course in the instant case for we want this to be understood by all concerned that when a Quasi Judicial Order or a Judicial Order otherwise is sought to be impugned under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the court does not sit in appeal, but sits only to review the Judicial Order and the review of a Judicial Order is limited to seeing whether the Order has been passed without jurisdiction, whether there is violation of principles of natural justice, whether there is any such illegality in the order which has rendered it invalid and such other matter which render the orders void and the Court does not enter into the merits of the matter to decide either the issues of fact or law. It cannot set aside such orders sought to be reviewed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India merely because there is some error of law or some error of fact unless there is miscarriage of justice.

(3.) For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned single Judge for a fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.