ABU BAKKAR ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the extent and the content of the power of and the procedures to be adhered to by the Authorised Officer pertaining to seizure and confiscation of an article/property under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 is the subject-matter at issue, which arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered owner of a truck bearing Registration No. NLA 3709 which operates as a public carrier. The Range Officer. Protection Range, Diphu, found the vehicle inside the Dhansiri Reserve Forest on 2.2.98 at 11 AM while some persons were loading the truck with Bogi Poma and Badam, collected and stacked inside the Reserve Forest. The vehicle was accordingly seized in presence of witnesses. The petitioner stated that at the relevant time, when the incident took place, he was at Silchar and as such, he was totally unaware about it. On his return from Silchar when he was informed about the matter, he approached the respondent No.3, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karbi Anglong, West Division. Diphu, for release of the vehicle. The petitioner received a notice dated 8th April. 1995 bearing No. FO-3/98/32103-104 dated 8.4.95, advising him to appear the respondent No.3 on 25.6.98 and signed by the DFO, Karbi Anglong, West Division, on 6th of May, 1998. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 on the aforesaid date, on which date, however, the case was adjourned informing him that the next date would be intimated in due course. According to the petitioner, he had to move the High Court for release of the vehicle and the High Court entertained his petition and passed an interim order directing the authority to release his vehicle on furnishing an indemnity bond. As per direction of the Court, the petitioner moved the Authorised Officer for release of his vehicle, but the respondent instead of releasing the vehicle, passed the impugned order dated 20.8.98, whereby the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated under sub-section(4) of Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation, 1891, the legality and validity of which is challenged in this writ petition as being arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) The respondent No.3, Divisional Forest Officer. Karbi Anglong. West Division, Diphu, who passed the impugned order, contested the case and filed affidavit-in-opposition. The respondent asserted that the vehicle-in-question was seized by the In-Charge, Range Officer, Protection Range, along with tools and equipments on 3.2.98 as per the seizure memo and the District Magistrate. Karbi Anglong, was accordingly intimated on 4.2.98, informing inter-alia that on 2.2.98 at about 11 AM. the Forest Protection Party along with Home Guards one truck bearing Registration No. NLA 3709 with eight persons, while patrolling in the Dhansiri Reserve Forest, and subsequently also detected another truck bearing Registration No. NL-04/A 036 and after due search, found one person with a Carbine loaded with thirtytwo numbers of bullet. The respondent referring to a communication bearing No. PS/98/4(9)/37- 38 dated 4.2.98, addressed to the District Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, by the In-Charge, Protection Range, Diphu, stated that from the recorded statements of the persons referred to in the communication it was revealed! that they came from Dimapur to take timber collected illegally from Dhansiri Reserve Forest. That the arrested persons were produced before the District Magistrate in acconiance with the provisions of law. That the Authorised Officer thereafter issued notice dated 20.2.98 calling upon the concerned person to submit documents regarding the ownership of the seized truck. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted a petition dated 5.3.98, stating that the truck was forcibly taken to Dhansiri Reserve Forest and accordingly, asked for release of the vehicle. It was further stated that thereafter the respondent No.3 by notice dated 19.3.98, asked the petitioner and other concerned persons to appear before him on 17.4.98. However, thereafter again 25.6.98 and 25.7.98, were fixed for further hearing and finally by an order dated 20.8.98, the truck was confiscated. That the respondent at all the relevant time, acted lawfully and afforded reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend his case and passed the impugned order bonafide and in accordance with law,