*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH +WRIT PETITION No. 557 OF 2003 % DATED: 12.03.2008 # R. Muthukrishnan, S/o S. Radhakrishnan, H. NO. 8, Srinagar Colony, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099 (Tamilnadu) ..... PETITIONER AND $1 The Forest Range Officer, Srikalahasthi Chittoor District 2 Authorized Officer & Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3 The Divisional forest Officer, Chittoor East WL Division, Chittoor district .....RESPONDENT ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI K.JAYA KUMAR ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: GP FOR FORESTS < Gist: >Head Note ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 557 of 2003 Between: R. Muthukrishnan, S/o S. Radhakrishnan, H. NO. 8, Srinagar Colony, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099 (Tamilnadu) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Forest Range Officer, Srikalahasthi Chittoor District 2 Authorized Officer & Sub- Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District 3 The Divivisional forest Officer, Chittoor East WL Division, Chittoor district .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction preferably in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in confiscating the Vehicle No. TN-05-D-6580 Mini Van (Turbo 407) for the commissioner of a Forest offence of Transport of Red sander Logs is highly arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India by setting aside the order in CMA No. 22 of 2002 on the file of III Addl. district Judge, Tirupati dated 20-11-2002 in confirming the order of confiscation of the Vehicle TN-05-D-6580 in OR No. 18/2002-2003 dated 10-08-2002 on the file of Authorised office & Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupati Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the mini van Turbo-407 bearing registration No.TN-05-D 6580 and he is running the said vehicle for hire as light motor goods vehicle by obtaining goods carriage permit from the Transport Authority, Chennai. He used to entrust the said vehicle to the driver for transportation of the goods which are not prohibited. While so, on 02-05-2002 the driver of the vehicle Mr.Karunakar has informed that one broker from Trivikranagar, Chennai approached him and sought the said vehicle for hire to transport the house hold articles for shifting the house to Naidupeta, but the driver did not return the said vehicle and therefore on his search he came to know that the said vehicle was seized on 03-05- 2002 for transportation of 160 Red Sander logs weighing 2923 kgs. Then he filed an application for grant of interim custody and thereupon the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 03-07-2002, under sub-Sections 2(a) and (b) of Section 44 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and while rejecting the application for interim release of the vehicle on 06-07-2002, posted the case for enquiry on 30-07-2002, and the petitioner attended the said enquiry and submitted that he has given the vehicle to the driver on 02-05- 2002 for transportation of the household articles for shifting the house to Naidupeta but thereafter the driver did not meet him. The further case of the petitioner is that against the order of confiscation of the said vehicle by the 2nd respondent-Authorized Officer & Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupathi, dated 10-08-2002, petitioner filed C.M.A.No.22 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, which was dismissed on 20-11-2002 confirming the confiscation order. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed contending that the Enquiry Officer has not given any opportunity to examine the witnesses before issuing show cause notice and the seizure of the prohibitory articles such as Red Sander has not been proved at the time of enquiry as the Seizing Officials are not present and they were not examined and the vehicle was seized without the knowledge of the petitioner and the entire records are in the custody of the Forest Officials and as the alleged seizure itself has not been established the same is illegal and the driver of the vehicle did not meet him after 02-05-2002 and he has no knowledge of the transportation of the Red Sander and therefore the seizure and confiscation itself are illegal and liable to be set aside. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that on 03-05-2002 in between Are village and Marappareddy Kandriga of Are Beat of Ollur section of Srikalahasti Range, the section staff have seized the mini van bearing No.TN 05 U 6580; 407 Turbo with 160 Red Sander logs weighing 2923 kgs during the transport without any kind of valid permit and Government Hammer Mark. The Forest staff seized the vehicle along with the Red Sander logs, conducted panchanama, and transported to the Range Office premises at Srikalahasti for taking necessary action in the case as per the provisions of the Act as the said vehicle is liable for confiscation under Section 44 of the Act. It is stated that during the course of investigation by the Forest Section Officer, Ollur it was found that the owner himself was the driver at the time of the scene of offence and he has absconded from the scene of offence and therefore no statement was recorded and panchanama was conducted at the scene of offence. The owner-cum-driver committed the offence under Section 20(1)(c) (iii) of the Act r/w Rules 2 and 3 of the A.P.Sandal Wood and Red Sanders Transit Permit Rules, 1970. The 2nd respondent has registered a case for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 29(4)(1)(1)(b) of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner himself is aware of the involvement of the vehicle while transporting 160 Red Sander logs and there was no driver and the petitioner failed to produce any driver and there was no valid permit and therefore the vehicle was confiscated and the confiscation order was upheld by the District Judge. It is stated that as the offence was committed with the knowledge of the petitioner no other witness was examined and as per the record of panchanama it is evident that the vehicle was involved in the forest offence and the owner-cum-driver ran away from the scene of offence. As the vehicle was involved in the forest offence and the Xerox copies of the RC book alone were available at the time of seizure and the trip sheet, the other documents, and even the licence of the owner-cum-driver were also are not available in the record. It is stated that with the knowledge of the owner alone the vehicle was involved in the transportation of the Red Sanders and the owner has got full knowledge and he himself is responsible for the transportation and therefore the confiscation of the vehicle is legal and valid. 4. I have heard the rival contentions of both the counsel. Under the provisions of the Act whoever contravenes the rules and Sections made under the Act are not only liable for punishment but the vehicles involved in such offences are also liable for confiscation. 5. Section 29 (4) of the Act deals with the prosecution, and Section 44 of the Act deals with confiscation. In the instant case criminal case was also registered under Section 29(4) (a) and (b) of the Act. Under Section 44 of the Act the vehicle involved in the Forest offence is liable to be confiscated and under Section 44(2)A of the Act the Authorized Officer who seizes the vehicle along with the prohibited goods satisfies that forest offence has been committed, he may order confiscation of the seized goods, vehicles etc., used in committing the said offence, but under Section 29(2) (c) of the Act if the owner proves/establishes that such vehicle was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in-charge of the vehicle in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use no order of confiscation shall be made. 6. Here the only question that arises for consideration is whether the owner was able to establish that he has no knowledge and that his driver and even the agent whomsoever he has entrusted had no knowledge. 7. Petitioner has not established by any evidence before the Authorized Officer either about his ignorance or about the knowledge to his driver. Even the knowledge to the driver is the knowledge to the owner, but however petitioner failed to produce the driver. The panchanama goes to show that the owner-cum-driver was driving the vehicle and he has absconded. In the absence of taking any defence before the Authorized Officer for summoning the officials for the purpose of examination or cross-examination the question of examining any officials by the Authorized Officer does not arise. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the Authorized Officer has rightly considered the explanation and came to the right conclusion that the owner had knowledge about the involvement of the said vehicle and rightly ordered confiscation and the District Judge also on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence confirmed the confiscation order. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not see any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 12th March, 2008 LR Copy to be marked. B/o Tsy