IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24096 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.J.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, POTTAKKARAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THOMAS, S/O. VELLANI KUNCHAKKAN, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.H. HANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24096 of 2009 - F ---------------------------------------- Dated 22nd September, 2009 Judgment Heard Sri. K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.H.Hanilkumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The first petitioner is the proprietor of a saw mill. The second petitioner is the person entrusted with the right to run the said saw mill under an agreement entered into between the petitioners. On 1.7.2009, the first respondent Forest Range Officer came to the saw mill of the petitioners and took into custody two electric motors and two belt saws. The petitioners’ grievance is that though they had submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations before the second respondent requesting for release of the electric motors and belt saws seized from their premises, till date, orders have not been passed thereon. The petitioners contend that the respondents have no right under section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 to seize the electric motors and belt saws and therefore, the action of the respondents in removing the tools of their trade is arbitrary and illegal. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 2 of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the electric motors and belt saws removed from their saw mill. 3. A statement has been filed by the first respondent Forest Range Officer wherein it is stated that forest trees illegally cut and removed from a teak plantation were sawn in the petitioners’ saw mill with prior arrangement and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be proceeded against. It is stated that the persons who cut and removed timber which is a forest produce have stated that the timber cut and removed by them was sawn in the saw mill run by the petitioners. The first respondent has also stated that after the electric motors and belt saws were seized from the petitioners’ saw mill, they were produced before the Divisional Forest Officer and that if the tools seized from the petitioners are released before the authorized officer completes the proceedings initiated by him, substantial prejudice will be caused to the Department. 4. Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers any forest officer or police officer, who has reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed, to seize any timber or other forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence. Section 61 A (2) of the Kerala Forest Act stipulates that where a forest offence has been W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 3 committed in respect of timber which is the property of the Government, the timber in respect of which the offence has been committed and the tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence are liable to be confiscated. The contention of the petitioners is that the forest offence, if at all any was committed, was complete when the forest produce was cut and removed and that even if it is assumed that such forest produce was sawn in their saw mill, it cannot be stated that their saw mill was used to commit the forest offence. In my opinion, this is primarily a matter which the second respondent should decide at least in the first instance. Section 61 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers a Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests holding the charge of a Forest Division to direct immediate release of any property seized under section 52 and to withdraw any charge made in respect of such property. The Divisional Forest Officer, Chalakudy is an officer above the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests and holding the charge of a Forest Division. Therefore, the second respondent is competent to order release of the tools seized from the petitioners’ saw mill. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the second respondent W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 4 should consider the request made by the petitioners in Exts.P1 and P2 and take a decision thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P2 applications filed by the petitioners and pass orders thereon after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within one month from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. It will be open to the petitioners to supplement Exts.P1 and P2 representations by filing another representation along with a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa