IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23406 of 2009(Q) -------------------------- CC.96/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II(FOREST OFFENCES),MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. SAITH, KALLATHIL HOUSE VELLARAMKUNNU, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK. 2. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. UNNI MUHAMMED, THIRUTHITHODIKA, KARAPPURAM, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK, 3. ABAID, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, KOTTAPPADAM, BALAMKULAM, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK 4. USMAN, S/O. ALAVI, OTTUPURA HOUSE, PERUPPARA, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR SOUTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. POULOSE FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 23406 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.96 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, (Forest Offences), Manjeri for having committed offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iv) and (iii), Section 27(1) (d) and Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. 2. Allegation against the petitioners is that while the forest officers were on their petrol duty on 1.4.2005, the accused were found cutting teak trees from the forest area and trying to remove the same. They were apprehended and crime was registered as O.R. 7 of 2005. After investigation final report was laid before court. 3. It appears that the petitioners have filed Ext.P2 petition seeking to have the offences compounded. WPC. 23406/2009. 2 4. The complaint of the petitioners is that instead of taking a decision, the matter was initially referred to the Magistrate court concerned, which replied that it was for the forest officers to take a decision in the matter. Even thereafter no order is being taken on the petition filed by the petitioners, namely Ext.P2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also pointed out that Ext.P4 Circular issued by the Principal Chief Forest Conservator limiting the value of the article seized and which can be compounded is illegal and it is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is prayed that there may be a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 without being influenced Ext.P4 circular. 6. It has to be observed at the outset itself that there is no statutory right to compound. Compounding is a discretion of the forest officer. However, since the petitioners have filed Ext.P2 petition seeking compounding of the offences, the third respondent is bound to consider the same in accordance with law. WPC. 23406/2009. 3 7. The criticism levelled against Ext.P4 is without any basis. That is only a Circular issued by the head of the department to the officers, who are involved in compounding regarding the necessity to follow the compounding procedures. It only shows that if the value of the article is more than Rs.1000/-, normally compounding may not be permitted. That does not go contrary to the provisions of the Act also. It is only a general guideline to the officers to be cautious while compounding. The claim of the petitioners that Ext.P4 is contrary to the Act and therefore is illegal has no merit at all. 8. But as already stated, the third respondent is bound to take a decision on Ext.P2 petition said to have been filed by the petitioners. Even though compounding is only a discretionary remedy, the statutory authority is bound to consider the petition filed by the petitioners. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate WPC. 23406/2009. 4 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.