IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12117 of 2003 M/S LAXMI STORE through its proprietor, Ramji Prasad, son of late Indrasan Prasad, R/o village- Hariharpur, P.S. Yadopur, District- Gopalganj…... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Forest Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Gopalganj 4. The authorised Confiscation Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Saran, Forest Extension Division, Chapra…. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Chhotelal Singh, S.C.1 ------- 6. 12.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26.7.1997 (Annexure-10) passed by the authorized Confiscation Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Saran, Forest Extension Division, Chapra in Confiscation Case No.1 of 1997-98 and also the order dated 28.2.2001 (Annexure-11) passed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj in Confiscation Appeal No.3/1997 and also the order dated 30.8.2003 ( Annexure-12 ) passed by the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar in Confiscation Revision No. 2 of 2001 and further direction to the respondents to release the Khair wood in favour of the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that on - 2 - 2.12.1996 at 11 A.M., a raid was conducted by the Range Officer of Forest, Gopalganj in the premises of the petitioner and 1902 pieces of Khair wood were seized. On the basis of the said seizure, Confiscation Case No. 1 of 1997-98 was initiated and by the order dated 26.7.1997, the Forest Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer directed the same to be confiscated. Confiscation Appeal No.3 of 1997, against the same filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj and Confiscation Revision No.2 of 2001 filed against the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.8.2003. The case of the petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the said Khair woods were purchased by the petitioner from one Rama Kant Singh in the year 1993 on the basis of a recommendation made on 4.10.1993 by the Circle Officer, Gopalganj to the D.F.O., Siwan to permit the applicant, Rama Kant Singh on whose land measuring about 2.15 bighas there were 700 Khair trees, to permit him to sell the same. The petitioner in his letter dated 7.10.1993 sent to the Circle Officer mentioned the fact that on the basis of the said recommendation - 3 - he has already purchased the said trees and after cutting them sent the same to his village Hariharpur and sought permission from the Circle Officer to send it outside. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter an application was made for transit permit which was granted on 21.1.1994 with respect to 1000 cubic feet of Khair woods for transporting the same from village Hariharpur in the District of Gopalganj to Delhi. The case of the petitioner is also that an application was made to the Divisional Manager, Forest Project Division on 9.6.1994 either to purchase the remaining 8,278.33 cubic feet of the Khair woods or to issue permit to send them out-side the State. It is submitted that the said permission was not granted and on the other hand, the so called raid was conducted and the said woods have been seized and subsequently confiscated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the woods in question having been brought from the private land of the cultivator cannot be considered to be forest produce and it is not liable for confiscation and the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities ought - 4 - to be struck down. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relies upon the definition of forest produce under Section 2 (4)(a) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as also under Section 2 (4) of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 read with Schedule XII thereof under both of which according to him Khair wood has been enumerated as Forest-produce. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel for the State that the same could not have been removed even from the field of Rama Kant Singh without obtaining a proper transit permit which the petitioner has failed to do so. It is contended that it is evident from the orders passed by the various authorities, including the revisional authority, that the woods in question seized were found to be freshly cut having no property hammer mark or passing hammer mark and thus the said woods could not be those allegedly purchased by the petitioner from the said Rama Kant Singh three years back in the month of October, 1993. He also submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and earlier also there has been seizure of illegal Khair wood from - 5 - his possession. It is on the basis of those facts that the respondent authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the seized Khair woods were liable to be confiscated. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. The Indian Forest Act as amended by the State Legislature provides specific provisions for the confiscation of any forest produce in respect of which any forest offence is said to have been committed under Section 41 of the Act. The State Government has also been given power to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce and Section 42 provides penalty for breach of rules made under Section 41 of the Act. Pursuant to the same, the State Government has already framed the Bihar Timber and other Forest Produce ( Regulation of Transit) Rules, 1973 under which no movement of any forest produce can take place without a proper transit permit issued by the Forest Officers of the Forest Department. Under Section 2 (4)(a) of the Indian Forest Act provision has been made as follows: “2.(4) “forest produce” includes- - 6 - (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say:- Timber, charcoal, caouthouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that Khair wood is a forest produce which would come under the category of timber, catechu and kuth as enumerated therein. Similarly under Section 2 (4) of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 forest produce has been specified in Schedule XII of the Act which includes caouthouc, catechu, kuth and khair tree. It is, thus, evident that under both the Acts, Khair woods and trees have been included as forest produce. It is also evident that in clause (4) of Section 2 such forest produce like Khair wood whether found or brought from a forest or not have been included within the definition of forest produce. That being the position, there is no - 7 - substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that Khair woods having been grown up in the field of Rama Kant Singh would not be forest produce. I am supported in my aforesaid view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shankar Traders vs. The State of Bihar & others: 1997(2) PLJR 24, in paragraph No.16 of which it has been held as follows: “16. In the above view of the matter it has to be held that Khair wood being specified forest-produce under clause (a), of Section 2 (4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 and the Bihar Timber and other Forest Produce (Transit Regulation) Rules, 1973, movement of khair wood is subject to the regulatory provision of the said two - 8 - Acts and the Rules framed thereunder. If the power to regulate the transit of forest-produce alleged by foreign origin, within or through the territory of the State of Bihar is denied to the authorities, it would facilitate illicit trade of forest-produce and help the unscrupulous traders, setting the regulatory provisions at naught”. It is evident from the aforesaid decision that Khair wood is subject to the regulatory provisions of the two Acts and Rules framed thereunder and thus any violation of the said Rules would amount to a forest offence and the Khair wood seized, under such circumstances, would be liable to be confiscated under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. Moreover, this Court while exercising its power under writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the decision of the statutory - 9 - authorities but exercises its power of judicial review to see that the decision making process is in accordance with the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. Further this Court does not re-assess the evidence to arrive at its own findings of fact but only considers whether the findings recorded by the statutory authority are in accordance with law or not and that they are not perverse in the sense that they are based on no evidence or contrary to the materials on the record. From a perusal of the order of the revisional authority, I find that he has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the fact that Khair woods, which were seized, were found freshly cut and were not containing hammer or passing mark over the same and has rightly come to the conclusion that it could not be the same Khair wood, which the petitioner is alleged to have purchased in October,1993 more than three years before the seizure. The revisional authority has also considered the fact that earlier the forest officials had seized illegal Khair wood from the - 10 - petitioner on 16.12.1994 and thus there would be no question that the wood seized on 2.12.1996 are those which he had purchased in the year 1993 since he had no legal wood even in the year 1994. This Court also finds that in terms of the provisions of Forest Produce (Regulation of Transit) Rules, 1973, Khair woods standing in the land of Rama Kant Singh could not have been cut and the woods transported from his field to Hariharpur village of the petitioner without obtaining a transit permit. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show to this Court that any such transit permit was taken. The assertion of the petitioner in his letter dated 7.10.1993 sent to the Circle Officer is that he had purchased and brought khair woods for storage in his godown. It is evident that the said act of the petitioner itself was an illegality committed by him, since there was no transit permit either applied for or received for transporting the said trees from the field of Rama Kant Singh to the petitioner’s village Hariharpur. Moreover, merely relying upon the so called recommendation of the Circle Officer which is no recommendation in the eye of law, the petitioner had no authority to - 11 - even purchase the said Khair trees as under the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 only an agent duly appointed by the State Government could have purchased any such wood and evidently the petitioner is not an agent appointed by the State Government. Hence, he could not have even purchased the same. The revisional authority has also noticed the fact that the petitioner went to the extent of producing a fake person as Rama Kant Singh for his evidence before the Forest Officer and subsequently when the real Rama Kant Singh appeared, he gave statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that somebody else in his name has been produced by the petitioner in his evidence. The said conduct of the petitioner shows that he is not above-board in the matter. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.8.2003 passed by the Secretary, Environment and Forest Department. - 12 - The writ application, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )