^I_!_^£_H£GH gOUK^^Og_JUDIGATURB AT BI^aSPUR (^CG^ W.? . N0. _£<5% _/20.Q 1 P2TXTIOKERS > .•^ ••'''^y i.-'M1-- .^ ^•y,- ,.%^" ^p-^y. ^^y.-' ^•" ^' BE3PONDSNT 1. The State of dihattisgarh Through collecbor, silaspur. 2. Osnservator of Forest Bilaspur circle, Bilaspur (c.G.) 3. The Divis-tonal Forest Officer Janjglr, ohampa District - Janjgir, champa. VER S U S Harprasad Rafchor, S/o Shri sundarlai Rathor, aged about yesrs, R/o village - Sloni. Tahsil - charapa, District - Janjgir, charnpa. WRIT PBS'ZTJON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTZTUTlON OP INDXA. 11, 3TR?rw rbRsn^T sbKititflsa 'ss; •<ii<ii<i<i, ®Tflwis,Ri<'ii*iy Sii^i ^acft w^^\*^^0^ fa*«A ?T4acft l -tetj^ /,."".-...Ig^- 200 3(1^1 ^'wiWHf^a' 21-7-2005 6ov|t fil4d ajiide Shri Sandeep Dubey, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduif By this writ petition Conservator of Forest and •tti^ of the order dated 17-11-200Q Judge, Bilaspur in an appeal fil4c Forest dated 2-9-96 whereb|/ allowed the appeal omd %t dated 5-7-1991 and the oppe| dated 2-9-96 passed in appeal. Offjcer passed a confiscation ^i and also Gonfiscated the saw Brief facts necessary fo^ that the respondent herein village Sioni, District Janjgir under the license 9rtMited b^ Chhatt-isgarh Kashtha (hereinafter referred to as t4 Range Officer of the Forest t) he noticed that 72 pieces ofl respondent. On inspection, the^ wds Chirbn +l<ltlrf'lfl-f 11H<lTffte^t<Rl«K ^3Tl^IT3(I^T >o^t. Advocate for the State/petitioners. i, counsel for the respondent. |f+ie State of Chhattisgarh through Collector has questioned the legality ) passsd by the 1st Additional District a9ainst the order of Conservator of leamed Additipnal t>istrict Judge the order of Licensing Officer llate order of Conservator of Forest Vide order dated 5-7-91 the Licensing ^rder of 72 pieces of the seized wood mdtchine. '^ the disposal of this writ petition are the owner of a saw mill situated at C^iainpa and that saw mill was operating the Licensing Authority under the (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 i^ 'Adhiniyam, 1984). On 19-9-90, the (epart'ment inspected the saw mill and wood were lying in the saw mill of entry of the said wood was not found !••-.. in riie itslevuril ivyi'slw maintiiiried undar Th6 Adhiniyam, ^tj^^gggd^ YT-HP-' 31T^r'?iT ii?ricB3n^T sCTWflf?(T 3^'iani|Tgi, s^pj^, 'fiinwy 3TI^T q;(th *TT*WT»;<-11<»> ^ 200 Rl*.A aii^i gwiWHfia' -^ even no satisfactory explan^i given, <»s such the Range 0| pieces are ittegat, seized the ^ saw machine. He reported Officer, Korba upon which th4 show cause notice to the resff explain that he has contravej Adhiniyam, 1984. Reply of herein vide Annexure-P/7 on pieces of wood which were Bhagira'rfii, residentof Champ^ He further mentioned January to May and for oth( relevant time he was at Bilosl him by engaging private persff remain in the saw mill, therefl wood and kept in the saw mill. said wood belong to the about this fact before going matter to the Ronge OffiGe, villagers since lost 4-5 years done by the said person. In plan^tjon about the said wood pieces was rficer considering thdt the said wood ^ame ond he alsoseized the wheel of the the matter to the Divisional Forest Divisional Forest Officer, Korba issued res^ondent herein on 24-1-91 asking him to icd the provisions of Section 9 of the \he same was filed by the respondent 131-1-91 wherein he mentioned that 72 found in the saw mill were of one +i.!i)'c-«n-t»iiti<;iTfftel<9 <R)^ii ^sri^T-w^r •(hat the saw mill is operating only from months it remains closed and at the )ur. The saw mill is being operated by |)ns and during fhe night, they do not >re, in the night somebody brought the On enquiry, he was informed that the of Champa. Had he come to know |o Bitaspur, he could have reported the C|iampa. There is some dispute with the on dccount of •that this act hixs been Ijhe last, he mentionecl ttiat he may be carpe|iter ohd pardoned for flie Tirst mistaRe and he witl not commit any in •^ XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 3I1^T?iT f^iNisn^r sbii 'ylsa @ ^mwi »iw*> 3ST •^l^ld'M, »Tn*t'IS,Rldiyy 3li^l <4ach ^.....................g^ ^g f^s sn^r^gTWnfer -3- future. Thereafter, the state the statement of Bhagirathi) <ti|i;tc)in-) 'iWdTff fei<Jl 'lRf^K ^iari^irsn^r pent of respondent was recorded ond wcis atso recorded. The Licensing Officer reoKhed to the concli^sion that the explanation offered by the respondent herein was not appeal before the Conservatc^ Forest dismissed the dppeal oi^ satisfactory and ultimately, ptissed the order dated 5-7-91 confiscatin^ the wood and the saw machine. Being aggrieved by the s^iid order the respondent preferred an r of Forest ond the Conservator of the 9round of deloy. Thereafter, he moved an appeal before the A^lditional District Judge and the same was allowed on 21-12-95 ren^andin9 the matter to the appeltate author-ity to decide the oppeal pn merit. The appeal was also heard on merit and the same vws dismis^ed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent again preferre^J an oppeal which came to be decided by the impu9ned order dated 11 I have heard learned co impugned order. In para-7 of outhorized by the Licensin9 '-11-2000. unsel for th^ parties and pemsed the the order it has been mentioned that no materwil has been placed 0^1 record that the Range Officer was Officer to inspect the saw mill, therefore, he was not entitl^d to inspect the saw mill. In this connection, sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1984 envisages that the licensing of'fjicer or any other person authorized by the licensing officer may secur^e compliance of the provisions of the Act-, und wilh uview tu iiecure ^omplidnfi& 6f the ()rovision^ ^ XI-HC-22 W^IW R-fi+sn^r SIWifiVte 7S( "iii<iio<i, ®Tfiti'i6,Rldltiy 3TT^?T '•ra^l *impiTgi*n^) V^ 200 fSre^ ai^K'wiwaiN' otfier the licensing officer or any officer may enter and insped may search the premises and tool, vehicleand any othpr ar^ the ticensing officer himself licensing officer was entitled t|» ond machinery. It is not a ccsse wher4 officer was not entitled to plants ond machinery. The onl^ authorized by licensing officej point was raised before the never raised before the Divyi authority. l-1ad this point department was abte to reply it oan be considered irregularity record the authorization by has not been able to bring on seizure made by the Ran9e Unless this fact is proved 0(1 seapch cannot be made a grou| when show cause notice was person authopized by -the licensing any saw mill, examine any documents, ^eize any wood, plonts ond machinery, ^icle. In viewof 1+ie above provisions, r any qther person outhorized by the )»inspect cmd seize the wood and phnts ehter 'Mltd'fl-l IIHCTlffteflA^K ^31^IT3D^T an officer o#ier than the licensing or inspect or seize the wood or requirement of law is that he must be '. In this case, for -the first time this ^dditional District Judge and it was |ional Forest Officer or the appellate raised before •the D.F.O., the fhe same. Even otherwise, at the most as the department could not place on ^he licensing officer. The respondent record that on account of search and Officer his rights were prejudiced. id established, merely irregularity in id to vitiate the whole exercise. Even jssued to -the respondent herein about non-compliance of the provjsions of Section-9 of the ^dhinjiijftfi^fe^he XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^iwsn^r shlltiHf^tT 3S? .<ii<iici<i, ®T(lti'is,faditiy 311^1 451«h *ll<4dl fhW<ih ••••••••••••••••••••• g^- 200 fa^[ a<i^i ^•wiisiTHfer s~- Coljrt respondent herein has not raii the order of the oppellate provisions of settled principles The other ground which order of confiscation by learn^ under Sections 7(l)(d) and confiscated and immovable 1 finding is also contrary to th4 raison that as per the provisi entitled to seize wood, plants other article which is involved used in contravening the provisij Section 12 of the Adhinh saw mill etc. which envisages confiscation of the sto.ck of <ki whole or port-ion of the pla|' equipments which have been u^ Perusal of the order of &.F.O. of illegal wood which wos found saw machine hos been confiscah 12 the licensing officer was well as saw machine. Thereforfe confiscah'ed enllitled <=hi<<T<i41-i Hi^fiT^ftec<D <t^i«i< ^isrf^iTan^r sd this kind of objection, therefore, on this count is contrdry to the )f law. has been taken for setting aside the )d Additional Oistrict Judge was that 12 only moveable property con be )perty cannot be confiscated. This record and jegal provisions for the i|ans of Section 7(l)(d) the officer is ond machinery, tool, vehicle and any lor used or is about to be involved or )nsof the Act. ^am, 1984 provides for confiscation of ^hat the licensing officer may order food unlawfully stored together with its and machinery, implements dnd jed in the commission of the offence. c^ated 5-7-91 shows that only 72 pieces in the saw milt of respondent and also 1. As per the provisions of Section to confiscate wood in question as s, on this count, the order of learned Additional &istrict Judge is bad in law. w XI-HC-22 STI^T^iT f^TRisn^r Sf)H Hfiff -- :ifW 3^ "i(i'i|i<'t<i, »Tf)o'is,Rciiuy 3ll^;ft <^a<*> *<1«MISlliqi ••'•••••••••••••••••• ^ 20B aii^i ^wiwflte enquiry rs the enijuiry The other 9round taken| was that even -riiough the Forest Officer, intimation was cause notice was given to the was exsimined by the licensing and no opportunity was given to^ of this witness. This finding cannot be held to be legalfor evidence and refuses to sign tfl itseif is not correct uniess affected person before the tiiat the statement on which rfe by the witness. Merely by not ^i ground for setting aside the As far as the question o-fl is nothing in the order of the cross-examination but the samk not raised before the proper for the Additional Dist^ second appeal stage and withoi^t Bhagirathi deposed before th^ was seized from the saw miil ConserAitor *l<llcl4)-l •il'K-il'fffc'J <R|^K ^sif^irsn^T by learned Additional District Judge wos conducted by the Divisionai ^ilso given to •the respondent and show (spondents, but witness Bhagirathi who ^fficer had not signed on his statement the respondent for cross-examination of leamed i4dditiona! Oistrict Judge reoson that if any witness gives the lat does not mean that the statement ^nd until objaction is raised by the officer or the appellate authority ^eliance has been placed was not given igning tiie statement cannot be made a order. cross-examination is concemed, there &.F.O. that resppndent asked for the was not ailowed. Even this point was of Forest, •ttierefore, it was not •ict Judge to allow this ground at the ony vaiid basis. Even otherwise, said enquir/ officer that The wood which not belong to him and there was no dbes entry in the register. Apart from that, respondent XI-HC-22 sn^rqiT f^iwsn^r a>*i yRa %»?»»" .».rti 'S31 ^MIciq, OTntf'16, Rx-IIUy 3n^?r q'Scfl t|i*<Mi sn*iicn V^ 200 f^i% afi^KWiwiifsa' .—' -^- explanation in response to the^ that he came to know that thej by carpenter of Champa, then to the concemed Forest Offi( mill by some one else. He has the wood in question was kept Moreover, some pieces of wooi| In yiew of the foregoin^ order passed by the 1 not in consonance with the pr^ it cannot be sustained. In the result, the writ by learned 1 Additional Oistrj Pnrties are entitled for Additlonal notice issued by the D.F.0. mentioned said wood has been kept in his saw mill fiis first duty was to report the matter i(:e about putting illegal wood in his saw ttot been ab!e to establish the fact that |>y some one else without his knowledge. were lying there after they were cut. reasons, I am of the opinion that the District Judge in second appecl is wisions of Adhiniyam, 1984, therefore, *i'ii(d'i|1-f tiiH<iTffte^t'<Ri«i< ^si^TTsn^r ^etition is allowed and the order passed ct Judge, Bilaspur is quoshed. ^ertified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhaduo Judge (•fl^ysir) /w^: