KAMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20 th September,2004 passed in Confiscation Appeal No.14/2001 by the Appellate Authority cum Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh, respondent no.2 affirming the order dated 30 th April,2001 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer cum Licensing Authority, respondent no.3, whereby, under the provisions of Section 12 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act,1990, the seized log of woods, plants and machinery, implements and equipments have been confiscated and the licence in the name of the husband of the petitioner no.1 namely Bijan Mistri and father of the rest of the petitioners was cancelled. These petitioners have been substituted in place of the original licensee on his death during pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority.

(3.) The short facts of the case are that the licence in the name of the sole proprietor Bijan Mistri, owner of M/s Shiv Shankar Furniture and Saw Mill at Rani Bandh Dhaiya, Dhanbad was existing under the provisions of Bihar Saw Mills(Regulation) Act, 1990. However, on 24.01.2001, during course of inspection by the Forest Officer, the plant and machinery, implements and equipments of the said firm such as trolley machine, band saw electric meter, diesel engine, stock register along with 189 pieces of shemal logs were seized for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act,1990 and as per the terms and conditions of the licence. The licensee was issued show cause notice on 17.2.2001 asking him to explain as to why the seized articles be notconfiscated. The licensee thereafter appeared and produced the valid transit permit explaining his stand that he was not involved in any violation of the Act of 1990 and the logs of woods seized from the premises of the firm were under valid transit permit brought in the said saw mill. The petitioner was again served a show cause notice under Section 7 of the Act, which was also duly replied inter alia stating that the logs were procured under valid transit permit from Koderma Range issued by the competent forest officer and it was further contended that the inspection and seizure were not conducted by the authorized person under Section 8 of the Act, as only the licensing authority under the Act or the duly authorized person on his behalf can conduct such inspection and seizure. It was further contended that the seized logs of woods bore the hammer mark of Forest Department and in respect of the difference in number and seizes of the log of woods, it was submitted on the part of the licensee that as per practice of the trade, the measurement of the forest produce is done in terms of to be "feet" and not in terms of the number and seizes. It was further contended that the stock register also bears the measurement in terms of to be "feet" and "meter" under the prescribed format, which the saw mill owner required to file periodically. Accordingly, the licensee explained the details of 354 logs having been obtained under six transit permits and tallying with the stock register but the raiding party refused to measure in terms of cubic feet rather they relied upon size and number and proceeded against the licensee under the penal provision of the Act,1990.