SUKANTI MALIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in FAO No.74/2015 and further seeking a direction to the opposite parties more particularly the opposite party no.4 to release the seized Ashok Leyland Pickup Van bearing registration No.OD01-D-2137.

(2.) Short background and the undisputed fact involving the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the Ashok Leyland Pickup Van bearing registration No.OD-01-D-2137. The vehicle of the petitioner was seized for carrying timber alleged to be illegally transported with the knowledge and connivance of driver without having a Timber Transit Permit. The pickup van appears to have been firstly detected by the Nilagiri Police and on information the Forest officials seized the vehicle alongwith forest produces. On seizure and upon entering into enquiry an Offence case vide No.13K dated 7.10.2014 was initiated for confiscation of the vehicle as well as the forest produces appearing to be a proceeding U/s.56 of the Forest Act. Defending the case, the opposite party herein examined seven witnesses and the petitioner herein examined two witnesses. The competent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed for confiscation of both the vehicle involved as well as goods involved. On filing of an appeal, the District Judge also rejected the appeal. Record further reveals, in the meantime, a proceeding U/s.21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 has also been initiated.

(3.) Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders of the original authority as well as the appellate authority submitted that the transportation of the goods was made from Nimain Nagar in the State of West Bengal to Chintamanipur, Nilagiri in the State of Odisha and admittedly, the transportation of the materials involved was made after obtaining Timber Transit Permit from the competent authority at the West Bengal end but however, for transportation inside the State of Odisha there was no Timber Transit permit obtained. Shri Mishra, learned counsel contended that for bona fide transportation of Timber under the cover of T.T. Permit granted by the authority in West Bengal, the Forest authority instead of initiating the case U/s.56 of the Forest Act should have asked the driver involved for obtaining a Timber Transit permit for further transportation of the materials inside Odisha. Shri Mishra, thus contended that it is, for the above background of the case and particularly keeping in view that the goods transported did possess a Timber Transit permit from the West Bengal end for the initial phase of journey, obtaining a Timber Transit Permit inside the State of Odisha was a mere formality. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, taking this Court to the provision at Section 56 of the Act, 1972 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 1980 contended that there is no question of attracting the provision of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act and it is, on the other hand, taking this Court to the criminal proceeding already initiated involving the petitioner U/s.21 of the Rules, 1980, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Forest authority took right step in proceeding against the Driver in initiating a proceeding under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1980 but however failed to appreciate the non-involvement of the proceeding U/s.56 of the Act. It is, in the above premises, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Section 56 proceeding becomes illegal and therefore, this Court interfering in both the orders of the original authority as well as the appellate authority involving the Section 56 of the Act, 1972 proceeding should set aside the same.