KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain common questions have been raised in these writ petitions and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) Petitioners in various petitions are owners of motor vehicles such as trucks, jeeps, tractors, stage carriage vehicles etc. On the allegation that these vehicles have been used for removing forest produce contrary to law, they have been seized by Forest Officers or Police Officers and confiscation proceedings have been initiated or about to be initiated against them. In most of the cases, action is being taken under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, Central Act), as amended by the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983, (for short, 1983 Act). In a few of the cases, action is being taken the M. P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, i.e. M. P. Act 9 of 1969 (for short, 1969 Act), as amended by the Amending Act 15 of 1987. In most of the cases, by interim orders, vehicles have been directed to be released on execution of bonds with or without sureties as the case may be. Certain provisions of Sections 53 and 52-C of the Central Act, as amended by the 1983 Act, are challenged in many of these cases, while in some of the cases, Section 15 of the 1969 Act, as amended, is challenged. Consequently, as a corrollary to the challenge of the above provisions, the seizures effected are also challenged.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions : (i) Section 52(3) of the central Act, as amended in M.P., is unjust, unfair and arbitrary and violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. (ii) Conferral of power of confiscation on authorised officer is arbitrary. He is made Judge in his own cause which violates principles of natural justice. There is violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. (iii) Section 52 (3) of the said Act which provides for confiscation of the vehicle, is arbitrary, unjust and unfair. It leaves no discretion to the Forest Officer to impose any penalty less than that of confiscation. (iv) Section 52-C of the said Act which bars jurisdiction of Courts in regard to disposal of property, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Legislative encroachment into judicial powers is bad in law. (v) Absence of provision for interim release of vehicles or time limit for keeping vehicles in custody renders the scheme of the Act arbitrary. (vi) There is repugnancy between Ss. 52(3) and 55(1) of the said Act. (vii) Section 15 of the 1969 Act, as amended, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (viii) In cases governed by 1969 Act, as amended by Act 15 of 1987, release of vehicles cannot be refused on the basis of Section 52-C of Central Act, as amended by 1983 Act in view of Section 22 of the 1969 Act. (ix) Amendments to 1969 Act, introduced by Amending Act of 1987 have no retrospective effect.