DANDAPANI ROULA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration No.ORU 6829. This truck is alleged to have been involved in the commission of a forest offence and a proceeding has been started against the petitioner. A notice to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated u/s.56(2)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act was served on him. The vehicle was also seized. The petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 604 of 1984 challenging the seizure of the truck and also the vires of certain provisions of the Act regarding confiscation and seizure of vehicles. In that writ petition, this Court passed order directing release of the truck on furnishing security of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the authorised officer with the further stipulation for executing a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle before the authorised officer at the close of the confiscation proceeding, if so required. Failure to produce the vehicle before the authorised officer as and when called upon by him would amount to contempt of the order of this Court. By virtue of the order of this Court and after complying with the terms and conditions as mentioned above, the truck has been released. The petitioner now alleges that after the truck was released, he wanted to engage the same in some forest contract works. But to his surprise, he found that a letter dt.4-5-1984 (Annexure 1) has been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division (O.P. No. 2) to the Divisional Forest Officers of Puri, Nayagarh, Phulbani Boudh, Balliguda, Ghumsur South and Parlakhemundi Divisions requesting them not to engage the above truck for transportation of any forest produce in their divisions till the finalisation of the case and to inform the check gates under their divisions to watch the activities of the truck. This letter (Annexure 1) is purported to have been issued in pursuance of the government letter dt. 22-6-81 (Annexure 2) by which the Secretary to Government, Forest, F. and A. H. Department had informed all Collectors, Chief Conservator of Forests, Additional Chief Conservator of Forests (Kendu Leaf), all Conservators of Forests and all Divisional Forest Officers that if a truck or other mechanised vehicle is caught in connection with any forest offence, an immediate intimation should be sent to the Regional Transport Officer and Regional Transport Authority giving the registration number of the vehicle, name of the driver and his driving licence number and relevant section of the offence, etc. Along with the information, a request should be made to the R.T.O./R.T.A. to suspend the registration number and the licence of the truck and the driver pending disposal of the case.

(2.) Though reference to the above letter has been made in Annexure 1, no such step has been taken. The petitioner's case is that after Annexure 1 was issued to the Divisional Forest Officers, he has been prevented from carrying on any forest contract work and also is facing difficulties in transporting forest materials and other articles through forest roads. Thus, he has been prevented from carrying on lawful business even though it has not been finally adjudged that he has been involved in any forest offence. According to the petitioner, Annexure 1 amounts to blacklisting him without giving him an opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The opposite parties in their counter have stated that the petitioner is involved in the commission of forest offence. The letter (Annexure-1) is merely a request to the concerned Divisional Forest Officers not to engage the truck ORU 6829. There is no impediment on the petitioner to carry on business in spite of the letter.