ARUN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of Khair wood by the Forester at Barauni Railway Station which was being carried from Tangla in Assam to Kanpur (Anwarganj) in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the wagon on the basis of a transit permit.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner. one Chikan Boro, a businessman of Kanpur. who deals in Khair wood and other woods, intended to purchase Khair wood from Assam and accordingly after obtaining permission from the Forest Department, Government of Assam and getting transit permit (Annexure 5) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang Forest Division, Mangaldoi, Assam, the Khair wood in question was booked at Tangia tor Kanpur (Anwarganj). A photocopy of the railway receipt has been annexed as Annexure 1. While the said wagon was being carried through the State of Bihar the same was intercepted at Begusarai by the Forester of Begusarai who seized all the Khair woods booked in the said wagon and forwarded the seizure list to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai vide his Memo No. 3/95 dated 24.3.1995 (Annexure 2). The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division, Begusarai vide his Memo No.567 dated 6th June. 1995 sought for a clarification with regard to genuineness of the transit permit issued tor the purpose of carrying the wood in question and in response thereof the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang Division, Mangaldoi vide his Memo No. 2847 dated 3.7.1995 communicated the Divisional Forest Extension Officer, Begusarai that the said letter is genuine and it was duly issued by his Office. Copies of the said letters have been annexed as Annexure 3 and 4. It is stated that even prior to that the Divisional Forest Extension Officer, Begusarai vide his letter no. 307 dated 15th April, 1995 sought for a clarification with regard to the transit permit No. 5/142836 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang. Division, Mangaldoi, who vide letter No.2034 dated 10.5.1995 sent the original transit permit (Annexure 5) which also showed that the papers are genuine. The Railway authorities who booked the goods also informed the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Extension Division. Begusarai that the said Khair wood was booked on the basis of transit permit issued by the competent Officer of the Forest Division.

(3.) MR . Dutta, learned Standing counsel No. IV. appearing for the State of Bihar and its officials, has submitted that under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, the control of all rivers and their banks as regards the floating of timber, as well as the control of all timber and other forest produce in transit by land or water, is vested in the State Government which may make rules to regulate the transit of all timber and other forest produce. According to him, in course of transit of forest produce through the State of Bihar the authorities of the State of Bihar are fully competent to conduct search and seizure and if it is found that the same is being carried illegally and without anyvalid permit, the authorities are fully competent to seize the same. With reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit, he submitted that the Forester, Barauni seized the Khair wood which was being carried in the wagon in question as it did not have property hammer impression or the passing hammer impressions or any mark of identification of Forest Department of Assam and Government of Bhutan. He submitted that from the transit pass annexed by the petitioner as Annexure 5 it will appear that the Khair wood booked in the wagon was of Bhutan and according to the communication by the Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan (Annexure ';A ';) no round/sawn of timber can cross the checkpost of Bhutan without hammer impression. He also submitted that according to the terms and conditions of the Forest Produce Movement Order, contained in Annexure ';B ';, of Bhutan the purchaser is also required to put registered property hammer mark on the logs and in absence of those marks the Officers of the State Government rightly doubted the genuineness of the wood being carried under the transit pass issued by the Forest Department of Assam, contained in Annexure 5. According to him, the genuineness of the wood being carried under the said transit pass all the more became doubtful as at the time of booking of the same by the Railway it weighed 300 quintals whereas at the time of seizure it weighed only 198.30 quintals as is evident from Annexure 2(a). He also submitted that the Khair wood is specified wood under the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and under section 5 of the said Act no person other than (i) the Government, (ii) an Officer of the Government authorised in writing in this behalf and (iii) an agent in respect of the unit in which the specified forest produce is grown or found can purchase or transport or import or export such specified forest produce in and from such area. As such, according to him, once the specified forest produce is being carried by any person other than the aforesaid authority, the State and its authorities are well within the power to seize the same.