JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the State of Orissa represented through the Secretary of Forest. Fishery and Animal Husbandary Department. Bhubaneswar for quashing the order passed by the District Judge. Dhenkanal in Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1982 by which he has set aside the order of the Authorised Officer-cum Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenkanal confiscating the truck bearing No. OSU 3944 belonging to Santosh Kumar Behera (opp. party No. 1). 2. The truck bearing No. OSU 3944 was found illegally transporting 26 Nos. of sallogs without any permit in violation of Rules 4 and 14 of the Orissa Timbers and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 The truck was seized by the Forest Guard Parasuram Tarai of Kamakhayanagar West Range and the seized properties were produced before the Authorised Officer (opp. party No. 2) The Authorised Officer after observing all formalities as per the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 confiscated the vehicle and the forest produce i.e. sal logs. Against that an appeal was carried to the court of the District Judge, Dhenkanal as provided u/s 56(2e) to set aside the older of consultation and release the seized truck The District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of consultation. Against this order the State Government has come up to this Court with this writ application. 2. It is not disputed before us that Hemanta Chandra Mohapatra (opp party No. 5) was driving the vehicle at the time of seizure and he was an agent of the owner; and that the truck was used for carrying the logs without the knowledge and connivance of the owner Santosh Kumar Behera. The Authorised Officer being satisfied that forest offence has been committed in respect of the logs In question and ordered confiscation of the forest produce and the vehicle with the following finding: Hence it is proved that the driver and the person who had hired the vehicle had the knowledge and connivance in committing the offence and they had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The appellate court however held that the driver had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions and the liability for confiscating the truck does not arise in this case. The appellate court however held that the driver had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions and the liability for confiscating the truck does not arise in this case. The appellate court further found that the driver H.C. Mohapatra was prevailed upon by Kamalakanta Nayak (opp. party No. 4) to carry the logs on the false representation that he had necessary permit for the purpose, The appellate court further held that the truck was worth Rs. 2 lakhs whereas the timbers were worth Rs. 4,000/-; that the driver is almost an Illiterate person that the truck was used without the knowledge and connivance of the owner; that the Orissa Forest (Amendment) Act was published in the Gazette on 18-4-1983 and the vehicle was seized on 5-6-1983; and that this amendment in the Act brought a drastic change in the existing Forest Act regarding confiscation of vehicles used in commission of forest offences, but this has not been given wide publicity through newspapers, radio and other agencies making people aware of the grave consequences involved in the amended Act. Hardly less than two months have elapsed from the date of publication of the amended Act and the seizure of the truck in question in this view of the matter and having regard to the low academic qualification of the driver it is not proper to expect high standard from him. The owner (opp. party No. 1) is an unemployed Graduate and has started the truck business to earn his livelihood and the contiscation of the truck will ruin him. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the appellate court has reversed the finding of the Authorised Officer are in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act. In this case as there is no doubt that the truck was carrying forest produce in violation of the Rules 4 and 14 of the Orissa Timber and Forest Produce Rules, 1980 and under the provisions of Section 56(2-a) the Authorised Officer had no option than to confiscate the vehicle, the learned District Judge has acted illegally in taking into consideration extraneous matters in setting aside the order of confiscation. He further argued that assuming that under the provisions of the Act the Authorised Officer may order confiscation of forest produce and the vehicle, u/s 56(2 sic) of the Act the word "may" shall be construed as "shall" and the Authorised Officer having exercised his discretion conferred under the provisions of the law, the learned appellate court should not have interfered. On the other hand Mr. Patnaik learned Counsel appearing for opp party No. 1, submitted that the authorised officer unlike the appellate court has not recorded any reasons for exercising his discretion for confiscating the vehicle. The provisions of Section 56(2-a) of the Act as amended are in parimateria with Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act and the words used in both the sections are identical. Under the provisions of Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act the Collector "may", if he thinks it expedient so to do "may order confiscation" of any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. Learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bathu Prakasa Rao and Others. State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna Bhima Walvakar and Another, and Sundari Devi Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal and submitted that the power of confiscation u/s 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act is discretionary. Further the power of confiscation of an essential commodity seized for contravention of an order issued u/s 3 is a discretionary power. From the use of the word "may" before the words "order confiscation" in Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act it is clear that the Collector has discretion regarding confiscation. He also relied on a decision reported in Mam & Co. Rayavaram, Tiruchirapalli District and Ors. v. Forest Range Officer, Thuraiyur and Anr. (1067) 11 M.L.J. 368, in which a Division Bench of the Madras High Court construed Section 43 of the Forest Act which provided for confiscation of the vehicle and contained the words "shall be liable to confiscation". It has been held that the use of words "shall be liable to confiscation" does not make it obligatory to confiscate the vehicles used in forest offences in all cases and that it is for the court to consider in each case whether the vehicle used in the commission of the forest offence should be confiscated or not having regard to all the circumstances of the case. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel for opp. party No. 1. Use of the words "may order confiscation" as provided u/s 56(2-a) gives ample discretion regarding confiscation. 4. Learned Counsel further argued that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power as in the cases of certiorari jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. He relied on a decision reported in AIR 1975 1297 (SC) . He further submitted that this writ application should be dismissed on the following grounds: (1) The writ petition does not make out any case of lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction. (2) The writ petition does not make out any case of any admissible evidence having been shut out or any inadmissible evidence having been admitted. (3) The writ petition does violation of the Act or natural justice. (4) The writ petition does not make out any case there being any finding based on no evidence. (5) There is no error of law apparent on the face of the order of the appellate authority as alleged in the writ petition. 5. Law is well settled that in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction the High Court should not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to have been based. The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. In a decision reported in Jadumani Pradhan Vs. Sewaram Pansari and Others it has been held: The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such finding the Tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible or has refused to admit admissible evidence or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. The findings of the Tribunal are supported by the evidence as indicated above. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and substitute its own finding as long as the finding is based on relevant evidence and is not shown to be perverse. 6. Considering the principles laid down in the decisions cited above we are of the view that the learned appellate court not make out any case of procedure or principles of has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and has come to a definite finding that the agent person in charge of the vehicle, the driver (opposite party No. 5), has taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of the vehicle in commission of the offence and we see no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned appellate court. 7. In the result, therefore, the writ application fails and is dismissed. No costs. B.N. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed