IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 CRP.No. 74 of 2011() ------------------------------ CMA.NO. 69/2009 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------- MATHEW SCARIYA, S/O.SCARIYA, AGED 22 YEARS, UPPUKUZHY PUTHEN VEEDU, CHALIYAKKARA, EDAMON VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SMT.S.GIFFARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR - 691305. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.74 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of July, 2011 ORDER This civil revision is in challenge of judgment dated 22.10.2010 of the Court of learned Third Additional District Judge, Kollam in C.M.A.No.69 of 2009 confirming the order of confiscation passed by the authorised officer, DFO, Punalur under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act”). The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the forest officials for its alleged involvement in the incident in O.R.No.5 of 2008 of Pathanapuram range. The authorised officer initiated proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle. That ultimately resulted in the order of confiscation which learned Third Additional District Judge confirmed by the impugned judgment. 2. The only challenge in this proceeding to the judgment of learned Third Additional District Judge and the order of the authorised officer is that no notice under Sec.61B of the Act was served on petitioner before the authorised officer passed order of confiscation. 3. In view of the said contention, learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the file relating to the order of C.R.P.No.74 of 2011 -: 2 :- confiscation and accordingly the file is produced before me today. I have perused the file. 4. In paragraph 3 and 8 of the judgment learned Additional District Judge has referred to various notices issued to the petitioner by the authorised officer requiring petitioner to appear before the authorised officer and show cause against confiscation. It is seen from the file that notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2008 by registered post (a copy of which also is seen in the file) requiring petitioner to appear before the authorised officer on 13.12.2008 and show cause against confiscation of the vehicle. The acknowledgment card found in the file and attached to the copy of that notice show that the said notice was served on petitioner on 24.12.2008 and on his father (who is an accused in O.R.No.5 of 2008) on 26.12.2008. Thus notice was served on petitioner requiring him to show cause against confiscation. The ground urged by petitioner has no legs to stand. Resultantly this civil revision fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-