HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK. W.P.(C) No. 5324 of 2011 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------- Sri Prabhat Kumar Pradhan … Petitioner -Versus- The Divisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh & Others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. Surendra Ku. Rout and B. Nayak For Opp. Parties : Mr. Soubhagyakanta Nayak (for O.P.No.3) --------- PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE L.MOHAPATRA AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE B.K. PATEL Date of hearing – 28.10.2011 : Date of judgment – 14.11.2011 B.K.Patel,J. In this writ application, petitioner has made prayer to direct opposite party nos.1 to 3, who are Forest Officials, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,22,300/- to him. 2. Confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’) was initiated before the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Nayagarh Division on the allegation that a TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-25-A-5603 was transporting 84 nos. of sizes and planks belonging to the petitioner without authority. During pendency of the confiscation proceeding opposite party no.4 appeared before the Authorized Officer and filed application asserting that at the time of seizure by forest officials the vehicle in question was transporting 8 nos. of doors purchased by her for construction of house and that sizes and planks as alleged were not in the vehicle. Upon verification of such claim, the Authorized Officer closed the proceeding and directed release of seized articles and seized vehicle on the basis of following findings: “The measurement of the seized produces as identified by the seizing officer and witnesses there on was taken. The total nos. of siris sizes came to 92 nos. instead of 84 Nos. as displayed in the seizure list out of which the common measurement was only 16 Nos that is 6’4”x4’x1” of sizes and rest measurement of the produces are not tallied to any other. During verification, it was seen that the sizes as has been shown in the seizure list seen to have been dismantled from door leaf afresh. More over, presence of grooves and nails in many more sizes support to conclude that those seized materials were fashioned also did not tally. But one point be noted that after dismantled the planks measurement in the seizure list should have tallied to the measurement taken by the verification party. Though the measurement are not equal, it is presumed that the seizure list was not prepared properly. In this connection the seizing officer and witnesses persons should be strictly warned to take proper measurement of the seized produce. Further the finished products should not have been seized on demand of TT permit as per 5(g) of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules,1980. The Section 56 of OF Act 1972 is concerned about the vehicle where the forest produces are loaded and transported without any permit. The vehicle should not have been seized until and unless justified forest produce are loaded in the vehicle. In this case 2 through the produce seized do not attract to the forest act, the vehicle need not have been seized. In this case, the produced seized are not seizable items and hence, the seizure of vehicle is not justified.” (sic) 3. It is averred in the writ petition that pursuant to the order passed by the Authorised Officer vehicle in question has been released in favour of the petitioner on 30.12.2010. Petitioner’s case is that upon verification and enquiry in the confiscation proceeding it was found that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was not carrying any seizable forest produce so as to attract the provision for confiscation under Section 56 of the Act. Due to illegal detention of the vehicle from 9.5.2010 to 30.12.2010 petitioner has sustained loss to the tune of Rs.2,22,300/- which amount the petitioner would have otherwise earned on account of hiring charges. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that illegal seizure of the vehicle by opposite party nos.2 and 3 having resulted in illegal detention, they are liable to pay compensation. Though the petitioner filed representation dated 30.1.2011 before opposite party nos.2 and 3 to pay compensation and forwarded copy thereof to opposite party no.1-Divisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh, no action was taken. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 it has been averred that in the order passed by Authorised Officer it has nowhere been mentioned that doors had been seized. 3 As per verification of the Authorised Officer and other Forest Officials in presence of the petitioner and his Advocate, the vehicle was released. It is evident that only sizes and planks were seized from the vehicle in question. Therefore, procedure in accordance with law was followed and confiscation proceeding was initiated. The Authorised Officer upon enquiry having already released the vehicle, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It was contended by the learned counsel for the State appearing for opposite party nos.1 to 3 that as the vehicle in question was found loaded with sizes and planks, seizure was made and confiscation proceeding was initiated in good faith by Forest Officials. 5. Admittedly, vehicle in question has already been released in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the Authorised Officer. Upon verification in course of the confiscation proceeding articles seized from the vehicle were found to be dismantled parts of doors in view of presence of grooves and nails on the sizes. Seizure was made and confiscation proceeding was initiated in accordance with law. However, seized articles having not been found to be forest produce liable to be seized as provided under the Act for want of permit for transportation, confiscation proceeding was dropped and order was passed in favour of the petitioner. There is no finding in the order passed by the Authorised Officer to the effect that doors were seized. Upon 4 verification, dismantled parts of doors were found to have been seized. Petitioner has not shown any mala fide on the part of opposite party nos.2 and 3. On the contrary, proceeding for confiscation was initiated in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the vehicle having already been released in favour of the petitioner upon due enquiry, petitioner’s grievance has already been redressed and his claim for compensation is not tenable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. ………………….. B.K. Patel, J. L.Mohapatra,J I agree. …………………….. L.Mohapatra,J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 14th Nov.,2011/Palai 5