? ws V) if}. §XNGLE EWQH \{ib AL?“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No.‘3r‘70 € of 2005 State of Chhattisgarh through the Divisional Forest Officer, Rajnandgaon (CG) Petitioner: Versus J C Patel and Company, Rajnandgaon through Partner Shrl Harllal Patel G E Road Rajnandgaon (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Respondent: ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 3706 12005 PETITIONER : State of Chhattisgarh. Versus J.C. Patel and Company. RESPONDENT : Appearance: Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioner. Shri H.B. AgrawaL Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (08.02201 1) The petitioner/State has called in question the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Court who has interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent and has thereby reduced the amount of penalt from y Rs.5000/— to Rs.1 OOO/-. (2) Facts of the case, in short. are that the respondent is engaged in import of forest produce/woods from other States, on the strength of licence issued to it under the Chhattisgarh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2001. On inspection it was found that the respondent was not maintaining accounts of the woods imported from other States and is aiso not submitting quarterly return as required under Rule 17(3) of the said Rules. The said non-submission or late submission of return was punishable under Rule 22(1), therefore proceeding was initiated and the / Prescribed Authority imposed fine of Rs.5000/- on the respondent by its ’order dated 15/01/2003. \\ ’ (3) The respondent preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest and the said Appellate Authority reduced the amount of fine from Rs.5000/- to Rs.1000/-. Revision preferred by the petitioner/State was aiso dismissed by the impugned order. (4) On perusal of the documents it wouid appear that the Prescribed i Authority itself granted permission to the respondent to “continue to import woods/timber from other States even after imposing tine of Rs.5000/-. Thus, the deiay in submission of return was condoned by the Prescribed Authority. The Appellate Authority has exercised its discretion and has reduced the tine from Rs.5000/- to Rs.1000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. (5) ln the opinion of this Court the present is not such a matter warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. ln the matter of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and others Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has laid-down the principles as to when interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the'Constitution of lndia is called for. Applying the said principles this Court finds that the impugned order does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia. ‘(6) Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed Sdl- i Judge . ‘ 1” Prashant Kumar Mishra A )C.’