IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8939 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- CMA.9/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. JAYANTHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELANCHERI HOUSE, KATTIPOLI, KINANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION, THANE, KANNUR. 3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANHANGAD. 4. T.J.SEBASTIAN, S/O. T.D.KORA, PLACHIKKARA IN PARAPPA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. G.P.PEETHAMBARAN NAIR, S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, KADAVATHUMUNDA IN MALOTH VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 6. RAJAPPAN PAZHIYANGAL, S/O. GOPALAN, MANJUCHAL IN MALOTH VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON 22/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.8939/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. NO.17768/2001 DT.15.6.01. P2:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 30.9.02 . P3:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 20.12.2000 ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SRI.T.K.SEBASTIAN. P4:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 15.4.01. P5:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 27.4.01. P6:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 29.8.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.10.03 ISSUED BY THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. P8:- COPY OF THE APPELLATE JUDGMENT DTD. 25.10.06. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8939 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 22nd March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Conservator of Forests, North Circle, Kannur and the District Court, Kasaragod respectively. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a lorry bearing Registration No.KL-14/B-1143. On 25.04.2001, the said vehicle was seized by the Vellarikundu police on the allegation that it was found unauthorisedly transporting forest produce. The vehicle, along with the timber, was seized and it was handed over to the Range Officer, Kanhangad. The Range Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the Divisional Forest Officer. Pending further proceedings in the matter, the petitioner WPC 8939/07 2 approached this Court and by an order of this Court, obtained interim custody of the vehicle. 3. In the meanwhile, confiscation proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was served with a notice in terms of S.61B of the Kerala Forest Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed statement, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2 in this Writ Petition. In the statement, it was pointed out by him that he had entered into an agreement with one Mr.T.K.Sebastian and had handed over the vehicle to the said person for a period of six months. During the relevant time, the vehicle was in the possession and custody of the said Mr.Sebastian. A copy of the said agreement is produced as Ext.P3. The agreement also provided that the vehicle shall not be used for any illegal purposes. The petitioner also produced before the Officer concerned, an agreement dated 15.04.2001 entered in between one Mr.G.P.Peethambaran and Mr.Pazhangan Rajappan, WPC 8939/07 3 whereunder the first party sold 15 pieces of jack wood timber in favour of the second party for Rs.8,000/-. It was pointed out that the jack wood trees were cut from the private property of Mr.Peethambaran. Copy of the said agreement is produced as Ext.P4. The petitioner also produced a certificate issued by the Village Officer, showing that the trees were cut from a private property. It is claimed that the Range Officer, who was directed to conduct an enquiry, was of the opinion that the vehicle was not liable to be confiscated since it was found that the transporting of the logs was under the impression that no permission was required for the same from any authority. However, the revisional authority, exercising its powers under S.61C of the Act, initiated proceedings against the petitioner. Notice was issued to the petitioner, who reiterated his contentions before the revisional authority. The revisional authority, rejecting the claims put forward by the WPC 8939/07 4 petitioner, ordered confiscation of the vehicle as per Ext.P7 order. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the District Court, Kasaragod in CMA No.9/04. The District Court, on a consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8 order. Hence this Writ Petition, challenging Exts.P7 and P8. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Authorities below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's vehicle was seized while transporting contraband articles. Apart from producing documents to show that the vehicle was not in his custody at the relevant time, he also produced documents, showing that the trees were cut from a private property. According to him, there is nothing to show that the logs that were being transported, were forest produce and in the absence of such a finding, confiscation WPC 8939/07 5 proceedings are badin law. 5. Though the argument may look very attractive at the first blush, it is without much substance. It is true that the Range Officer, during investigation, has observed that the transportation of the logs was made without knowing that permission was required for doing so. The revisional authority has considered the materials before it in detail and has found that the agreement relied on by the petitioner is a subsequently prepared one and it cannot be relied upon. It is also noticed by the revisional authority that Mr.T.K.Sebastian, whom the petitioner labelled as Driver, did not have a case that he had entered into any agreement with the petitioner. Moreover, the revisional authority found that the stamp paper, on which the agreement was written, is a suspicious one. It was on the basis of a secret information that the vehicle was intercepted and both the vehicle and the WPC 8939/07 6 logs were seized. The claim of the petitioner that the trees were cut and removed from a private property, was found to be false in an enquiry conducted by the Range Officer. The petitioner was unable to show any stems of the trees so cut and removed. Therefore, the agreement produced by the petitioner serves no purpose. 6. It is significant to notice that no body came forward before the Forest Authorities, claiming ownership of the logs. The revisional authority has also considered the relevance of the certificate issued by the Village Officer and has found that it is not acceptable. The reasons given for the same are convincing enough. Going by S.61B(2) of the Kerala Forest Act, the burden is on the owner of the vehicle to show that the vehicle was used for illegal transportation without his knowledge and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the illegal use of the WPC 8939/07 7 vehicle. 7. Once it is found that the agreement put forward by the petitioner is not acceptable, then, he cannot be heard to say that it was without his knowledge that the logs were transported in his vehicle and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the illegal use of the vehicle. 8. Further, when the petitioner also failed to establish that the trees were cut from a private property, S.69 of the Act is attracted and that also goes against the petitioner. 9. True that the lower Court, while disposing of the CMA has not gone into each and every details of the case. After going into some of the aspects of the case, it found that the order of the revisional authority does not call for any interference. The Court below perused the various documents produced by the petitioner and found them to be unsatisfactory. It was WPC 8939/07 8 observed that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the timber seized from his vehicle was not forest produce. In this visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope for interference is very limited. Both the Authorities below have considered the materials on record in detail and have come to the conclusion that the vehicle was involved in a forest offence. Those are findings of facts, based on appreciation of the evidence. Acting under Article 227 of the Constitution, it may not be possible for this Court to interfere with the findings of facts based on the evidence on record. The result is that this Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 8939/07 9 WPC 8939/07 10