ASHA SINGH Vs. AUTHORIZED OFFICER-CUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a house wife and owner of the vehicle (Ambassador Car) bearing registration No.OR-02L-9424, has filed this application to quash the order dated 07.11.2003 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forest, Nayagarh in O.R. Case No.27 of 2000-01, which has been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Puri vide order dated 30.01.2009 passed in FAO No.170 of 2003, under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 in confiscating the seized vehicle along with 48 pieces of sal wood.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner, who is a house wife and belongs to a family constituting eight members, having not been able to meet the family necessity with the little income, purchased a vehicle (Ambassador Car) bearing registration No.OR-02L-9424. Initially, the said vehicle was engaged in a travel agency on hire basis. As the same was not profitable, she decided to engage a driver and use the vehicle on her own. Accordingly, she engaged one Pratap Kumar Sahu, son of Bidyadhar Sahu for plying the vehicle. On 12.09.2000, the driver took the vehicle informing the petitioner that he was proceeding with passengers to Puri on hire basis and would come back on the next day. As he did not return on the next day, the petitioner searched for and came to know that the vehicle has been seized on 14.09.2000 by the Forest Range Officer, Odagaon in connection with forest offence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that neither the Authorized Officer, while passing the order of confiscation, nor the learned District Judge, while confirming the said order of confiscation, has taken into consideration the provisions contained in Section 56 (2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, particularly when the driver was instructed by the owner of the vehicle, namely, the petitioner not to indulge in carrying on any contravene goods or forest produce in the vehicle at any time. More so, at the time of seizure of the vehicle admittedly petitioner was not present and transportation of such timber was done without knowledge of the petitioner and, as such, she has no connivance in the alleged commission of forest offence. Therefore, the order of confiscation passed by the Authorized Officer in Annexure-2, as well as the confirming order passed by the learned District Judge in Annexure-3 is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that the value of the forest produce, which has been seized, is about Rs.8000/-, whereas the cost of the seized vehicle is about Rs.1,60,000/- and, therefore, the Authorized Officer should have given opportunity to the petitioner to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle.