RAJKISHORE MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22-5-1997 of the Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle, Angul at Annexure-2 and the consequential order of confiscation dated 7-8-1997 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh Division, Atagarh at Annexure-3.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that after taking loan from the District Industries Centre, he started a firm in the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Carpentry and carried on business on the strength of a licence granted by the forest authority. On 31-5-1991 at about 5 p.m. a truck bearing registration number OAC 2837 along with door, window frames and choukatha sizes was detained by the Range Officer, Sukinda at Galagaon on Daitary - Paradip Express Highway. The petitioner being the owner of the aforesaid forest articles produced challan No. 26 dated 30-5-1991 of M/s. Laxmi Carpentry and challan No. 14 dated 16-4-1991 of M/s. Tariai Carpentry. The Range Officer seized them on the allegation that the forest articles were not backed by valid permit. He accordingly produced them and the vehicle before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests for initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The confiscation proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and one Birendra Kumar Sahu who was the owner of the truck. The petitioner on being noticed appeared before the Authorised Officer and produced copy of the round log stock register and sawn size stock register. The Authorised Officer after conclusion of enquiry passed order dated 15-12-1995 (Annexure-1) holding that it would not be appropriate to confiscate the forest articles and the vehicle and directed release of the seized "forest articles" in favour of the petitioner on realisation of fine of Rs. 3,000/- and seized truck in favour of the owner-Birendra Kumar Sahu. It appears that against the aforesaid order dated 15-12-1995 of the Authorised Officer, the Conservator of Forests, Angul Circle, Angul was moved in appeal who by his order dated 22-5-1997 (Annexure-2) set aside the order of the Authorised Officer and directed to make fresh enquiry and finalise the confiscation proceedings. Pursuant to the said order, the Divisional Forest Officer passed order dated 7-8-1997 (Annexure-3) directing confiscation of the seized forest articles to the Government.As already noted, the validity of the order of the Conservator of Forests (Annexure-2) and the consequential order of the Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure-2) are the subject-matter of challenge in this application.

(3.) Shri Dash contended that no appeal lay to the Conservator of Forests against the order dated 15-12-1995 of the Authorised Officer and, as such, the order passed by him on 22-5-1997 (Annexure-2) is without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary the order of the Divisional Forest Officer (Annexure-3) made pursuant to the order of the Conservator of Forests is non est. The learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that although the Authorised Officer in his order at Annexure-1 directed release of the seized forest articles to the petitioner, it was an "order of confiscation" and, therefore, the Conservator of Forests rightly entertained the appeal.