IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 25317 of 2002(L) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ P.M.ASHARAF, POTTAYEKANOLEL HOUSE, IRUMPUPALAM, VALARA P.O., ADIMALY,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 43017/2002 IN OP NO. 25317/2002 L. DISMISSED 18/01/2008. SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DT. 10/12/99 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2/1223/98 DT. 25/11/00 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO. 47/2001 PASSED BY THE DIST. COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.25317 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT In this Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3. By Ext.P2 the jeep belonging to the petitioner came to be confiscated under Section 61A of the Forest Act. Petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge and the appeal came to be dismissed by Ext.P3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for forest. 3. The jeep belonging to the petitioner was admittedly used for transporting three logs of teak wood. Learned counsel for the petitioner would only contend that it may be true that the jeep belonging to the petitioner was used for transportation of timber. It may be true that the offence may have been committed by those persons. But even then, that is not sufficient to confiscate the jeep of the petitioner. According to him, the law is that unless the owner or the person in charge including the driver is having some reason to suspect that by the loading of the logs that he was O.P. 25317/2002. 2 committing an offence, the vehicle could not be confiscated. He would submit that having regard to the facts in this case, the owner had taken necessary precautions and when the person who was driving the jeep allowed the transport of three logs in question, he could not imagine that the vehicle was used for the commission of an offence under the Forest Act. An elaborate order has been passed by the authority vide Ext.P2. In the course of the order the authority has relied on the statement of the driver of the petitioner to the extent that he has received Rs.1250/- towards hire charges for a distance which is hardly 14 Kms. A man of average degree of reasoning could have thought as to why the persons could not hire a vehicle from that locality instead of calling a vehicle which came from outside. It is found that he is totally depending on the versions of unfamiliar persons at unfamiliar places. The timber was loaded at 7 p.m. In short, the finding would appear to be that as contended by the respondents that there was a duty on the part of the person in charge to take reasonable care in the matter . The jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited. It does not go to re- appreciation of the findings unless they are perverse. There is no case of any denial of an opportunity or violation of principles of natural justice. I would think that having regard to the facts as present in this case, no case is made out for interference. O.P. 25317/2002. 3 The Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb O.P. 25317/2002. 4 K.M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------- O.P. 25317 of 2002 ----------------------------- JUDGMENT 18.1.2008.