y<. :'^-m y 'SiS CU B> O 3- 1-j ST tn t» o, 1-1. l-1;. l-'« ,l-rt isa' EO »1-j !-'• m e 3 hj-^ a,' &. cr H <B •»• tflrj-. w yui " B s+ rtg f» • CJ r1- !xltQ "> 6) S- p.: . @ ,Dl-h m; 1 "^ ^ ^^/ rfs' ,.^ mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION No. 4356 of 1993 State ofMadhya Pradesh. VERSUS Mohd. Famki Warsi. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 216 QF THECONSTITUTIQN QF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiiihotri, J. Present: Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. None for the respondent. ORDER fORAL) (Passed on 03rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.04.1993 (Annexure P/3) passed by fhe 3 Additional Sessions judge, Raipur, whereby the revision filed by the respondent against the order 17.02.1992 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Raipur, confiscating the Tractor and Trolly ofthe respondent, has been set aside. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by tfae petitioner is that the respondent was transporting forest produce i.e. Sal timber without having proper permission, under the guise of fuel stacks in his Tractor and Trolly on 28.06.1989. An offence was registered under section 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1969. A confiscation proceeding started and fhe respondent was issued a show cause notice. The same was replied also. Thereafter, the tractor and trolly of the petitioner was ordered to be confiscated vide order dated 28.02.1991 (Annexure P/l). Thereagainst, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest, Raipur, who dismiSsed the appeal filed by the respondent. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Crimmal Revision under section 401 of the Code of Cmninal :L.«UU- ^-^T^. 2 Procedure, 1973, before the District & Sessions Judge, Raipur. The •» said revision was allowed setting aside fhe order passed by the Conservator of Forest and the Tractor and Trolly of the respondent was du-ected to be released. 3. Shri Sao, leamed Govemment Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that leamed Sessions Judge has erred in passing the impugned order as Sal Timber is a forest produce. He further submits that had fhe leamed Sessions Judge pemsed the notification dated 10.08.1970 (Annexure P/4), it would have been clear that Sal is a specified forest produce for whole of the Raipur district, which could not be transported without prior permission ofthe authorities. . 4. Despite service ofnotice, none appears on behalfofthe respondent. 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended fhereto. 6. On pemsal ofthe mipugned order dated 26.04.1993 (Annexure P/3), it is evident that the Court below has recorded a finding that the principles of natural justice was not followed when the matter was bemg considered by the Conservator of Forest as the respondent was not supplied wifh copy ofthe relevant documents. A notification with regard to rules regarding transportation of Sal logs was not produced before the authority below. The appellate authority has satisfied itself by holding that the same was never requested by the respondent. The Court below has furfher observed fhat the prosecution has committed gross error while prosecuting the case against the respondent, without affording an opportunity ofhearing. i» 7. The Supreme Court, va. Abdul Razak (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: "21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts have passed orders in exercise ofpower under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution oflndia disregarding the limitations identified and indicated by this Court in several decisions on the exercise of that porwer. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts •would keep in view the limitations of certiorari jirisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refrain from deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution as if they are adjiidicating appeals filed against the orders ofthe lower courts or other judicial/quasi-jvdicial bodies/authorities." 8. The ratio laid down in the aforestated case has been referred with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patif-. 9. In the case on hand, no jurisdictional error, infinnity or irregularity has been pointed out. Thus, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not mclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. lO.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- ''-t. Satfsh K. Agnihotri Judge