N.V. GOPALASWAMY Vs. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTSCUM-AUTHORISED OFFICER, NOWRANGPUR DIVISION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vehicle bearing registration No. ORK 932 belonging to the Petitioner was seized on 17 -8 -1984 while the same was carrying green fire -wood. The seizure was on the ground that the fire -wood was being carried without the necessary transit permit as required by the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter, 'the Rules'). Subsequently, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated by an order passed by the Authorised Officer -cum -Assistant Conservator of Forests. On appeal being preferred, the order of confiscation has been upheld. Hence this approach to this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT is first submitted that the vehicle in question did not carry any green fire -wood. This being a pure question of fact and the learned District Judge having gone into the evidence, it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the same and to hold that in fact the vehicle in question did not carry any green fire -wood on the relevant date. The next submission is that carrying of fire -wood does not require any transit permit. The basis of advancing this contention is that fire wood is not a 'forest produce' according to the learned Counsel because of which no transit permit would be required as visualized by Rule 4 of the Rules inasmuch as under this rule a permit for transit by land, rail or water is required relating to all forest produces only. The expression 'forest produce has not been defined in the Rules. But Section 2(g) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (shortly, 'the Act') contains such definition and is as below:

(3.) THE above apart, there are provisions in the Rules to hold that fire -wood has to be regarded as forest produce for the purpose of obtaining transit permit visualised by Rule 4. We have said so because : (1) The expression 'minor forest "produce' has been" defined in Rule 2(1)(h) of the Rules to mean "forest produce other than timber, fire -wood, charcoal and bamboos". This indicates that forest produce includes fire -wood. (2) While dealing with the question regarding cases in which permit shall not be required, Rule 5 states that no permit shall be required to cover transit of forest produce, inter alia, in the case of fire -wood not exceeding one headload, vide Clause (h) of Sub -rule (1). This would first show that as per Rule 5 fire -wood is a forest produce, and secondly transit permit is necessary in those cases where the quantity to be transported is more than one headload. (3) Sub -rule (8) of Rule 7 under the heading" Application for permit and order thereon" shows that such an application is necessary for removal of fire -wood from private holdings indicating thereby that fire -wood would be forest produce inasmuch as Rule 4 of the Rules requires transit permit for transit of forest produce alone. This apart, a reference to the Schedule of Rate for Forest Produce in Orissa Rules, 1977 shows that rates have been proved for fire -wood also as per Schedule II -C which would indicate that as per these Rules fire -wood has been taken to be forest produce.