IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31627 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARIYAMMA THOMAS, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.THOMAS ABRAHAM, THEKKATTIL HOUSE, THANNITHODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI. 2. THE DY.RANGER, THANNITHODU FOREST STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).31627/2009 ....................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No.KL-06-B-3945. She has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 notice dated 2.11.2009 issued by the second respondent calling upon her to produce the vehicle before him. In Ext.P2 it is stated that the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport mahagony trees illegally felted from the reserve forest. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 on various grounds. 2. The second respondent has filed a statement. It is stated that the land from where the trees were cut is part of Kumaramperoor Reserve Forest which was allotted to farmers under the 'Grow More Food' scheme on account of scarcity of food during the second world war. It is stated that though such permission was granted, the land was not de-reserved and it is still a reserve forest. It is stated that the petitioner's vehicle was used to transport timber cut and removed from the land allotted to one Rajan. Relying on Annexure-R1(c) statement it is contended that the W.P.(C).31627/09 2 petitioner's vehicle was used to remove the trees. The second respondent has also stated that after the timber was seized, a report regarding seizure was made to the authorised officer namely the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni and that the said officer has initiated proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The respondent has stated that in order to enable the authorized Officer to finalize the proceedings initiated under Section 61A, the petitioner's vehicle has to be seized and produced before him and that it was for that purpose, Ext.P2 notice was issued. 3. Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of Chapter 8 which includes Section 53, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory which is the property of the Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall without any unreasonable delay, produce it, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence before an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, not W.P.(C).31627/09 3 being below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests. 4. The officer who seized the vehicle namely the second respondent has already submitted a report to the Divisional Forest Officer who is the officer authorized to proceed under Section 61A of the Act. It was to enable the said officer to seize and confiscate the petitioner's vehicle that Ext.P2 notice was issued. Therefore, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge Ext.P2. The remedy of the petitioner is to appear before the authorized officer and to prove that she had taken all reasonable care and necessary precautions against the use of the vehicle for illegal transportation of forest produce. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Ext.P2. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the first respondent to finalize the proceedings initiated by him under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the first respondent within one week from today. It will be open to the petitioner thereafter to move the authorised officer seeking interim release of the vehicle. The W.P.(C).31627/09 4 authorised officer shall, if interim release of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings is permissible in law, grant interim custody on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit to impose. Orders in that regard shall be passed within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces the vehicle before him and moves an application in writing seeking interim custody of the vehicle. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs