JUDGMENT (ORAL) H.W. Dhabe, J. - This Writ Petition is directed against the orders of confiscation of the truck belonging to the petitioner on the ground that it was engaged in transporting illegally cut timber from the forest land belonging to the Government which is an offence under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. The facts are that according to the respondent, an anonymous complaint was received by the Conservator of Forests, Nagpur Circle, Nagpur from a citizen from village Gothangaon, District Bhandara on 21-3-1988 in which it was stated that a truck bearing No. M.T.G.-1592 was active in the vicinity of village Adegaon and was being used by some contractor who was indulging in illicit felling of forest trees in that area. It was further stated in the complaint that the said truck came to village Adegaon every night at about 10-10 p.m. and would go to the forest and after loading the timber obtained from illicit felling in the forest, it would return to Adegaon around 12.30 A.M. at the same night. It was then stated that due to the activities of the aforesaid truck, the Government was suffering huge losses. 3. After receiving the complaint, the conservator or Forests directed Dy. Conservator of Forests Planning and Shri S.W.H. Naqvi, Dy. Conservator of Forests (Tendu), both from his office to carry out patrolling in the area around Adegaon and conduct an enquiry and report their findings regarding complaint to him. As per the instructions issued to them, the Deputy Conservator of Forests Shri Chandekar and Shri S.W.H. Naqvi patrolled the area around Adegaon at night on 22-3-1988. They stayed at Adegaon for some time, but could not detect any offence as was alleged in the complaint. However, after about 10 days, at night on 1-4-1988, Shri Naqvi, Dy. Conservator of Forests (Tendu) went for patrolling in the area around Adegaon. At about 12.00 A.M. at night, he came to Adegaon and when he was talking to local villagers to collect some information, he found that a jeep No. M.R.G.-2046 was parked at Adegaon. On enquiry, he learnt that the jeep belonged to the petitioner who was said to be a forest contractor. He then also learnt that the petitioner had come to the village Adegaon by the said jeep. On enquiry, he learnt that the jeep belonged to the petitioner who was said to be a forest contractor. He then also learnt that the petitioner had come to the village Adegaon by the said jeep. After some time, i.e. around 12.30 a.m. on 2-4-1988, he noticed that a truck arrived at the village Adegaon. He stopped the truck and on checking he found that a big timber log of Anjan species was kept in the truck. On further enquiry, he also found that the said timber was being brought without any valid transit pass which is required under Section 41 of the Forest Act. An offence under Section 41 of the Forest Act was therefore registered against the truck owner as well as its driver. 4. After the offence was registered under Section 41 of the Forest Act, the truck along with the timber log loaded in it was seized under Section 52 of the Forest Act. The relevant enquiry shows that the truck belonged to the petitioner and the name of the driver was Deorao Disharam Wadave. After following the usual procedure of making panchanama etc., the further investigation revealed that the log of wood was from field survey No. 19 of village Gothangaon and that one Gajanan the brother of Bhimrao whose statement was recorded, had hired the said truck for carrying the log of wood. All the papers of enquiry were forwarded to the Authorised Officer under Section 61-A of the Forest Act, who on their perusal found that there was a case for confiscation of the truck in question belonging to the petitioner under Section 61-A and 61-B of the, Forest Act. 4A. The said Authorised Officer therefore issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 61-B of the Forest Act as to why his truck which was seized should not be confiscated. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and on the basis of the material; on record, the learned Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been indulging in illegal activities of cutting and transporting timber from the Government forest for a long time. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and on the basis of the material; on record, the learned Authorised Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been indulging in illegal activities of cutting and transporting timber from the Government forest for a long time. He, therefore, directed confiscation of his truck under Section 61-A (3) of the Forest Act The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Authorised Officer before the Sessions Judge, Nagpur under Section 61-D of the Forest Act The learned Sessions Judge however affirmed the view taken by the learned Authorised Officer. Filing aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition in this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under the Forest Act was a very minor one, as only one log of timber wood was found in his truck for which even the Range Forest Officer in his report to the Assistant Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) has recommended that after imposing the fine for the offence committed by the petitioner under the Forest Act, there should be no objection for release of his truck. The submission thus is that for such a minor offence, the learned Authorised Officer should not have directed confiscation of the truck under Section 61-A(3) of the Forest Act The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had no opportunity to defend against the finding of the learned Authorised Officer that the petitioner was indulging for a long time in illegal activities of cutting and transporting timber in breach of the ruled i.e. without obtaining any transit pass. Because the show cause notice did not contain any such allegations, the learned A.G.P. for the State has controverter the above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 6. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, we may briefly refer 19 some of the relevant provisions of the Forest Act. Section 41 of the said Act confers a power upon thy State Government to flame rules and Section 42 of the said act provides for penalty for breach of the rules framed under Section 41 of the said Act. Section 52 deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation and forfeiture. 'Sub-section. Section 41 of the said Act confers a power upon thy State Government to flame rules and Section 42 of the said act provides for penalty for breach of the rules framed under Section 41 of the said Act. Section 52 deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation and forfeiture. 'Sub-section. (1) of Section 52 provides for seizure of the tools, boats, vehicles or cattle used in the commission of forest offence in addition to the forest produce. Section 55 empowers a Magistrate to pass appropriate Orders in regard to forfeiture of the forest produce as well as tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing the forest offences. Since there was ruthless exploitation of Government forests by illicit felling of teak and other timber wood, a need was felt to prevent the growing menance of exploitation of Government forests by making suitable amendments in the Forest Act. Accordingly, the State Government by Act No.7 of 1985 introduced in the Forest, Act, Sections 61-Ato 61-C laying down an elaborate procedure for confiscation of the tools, boats, vehicles and cattle used in the commission of the forest offence and vesting of the same in the State Government free from encumbrances and also ousting the jurisdiction and authority of any other Court or Tribunal or authority in this regard. 6A. The State Govt. has thus enacted a self-contained Code for confiscation of the articles used in illegal cutting of timber wood of in its transportation. The validity of the said provisions was challenged before this Court on the ground that the said provisions were arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court however, after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer and another v. G. V. Sudhakar Roo and others1 on the question of scope and ambit of the analogous provisions of the Andhra Act has upheld the said provisions. It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra that the Forest Act has provided for two separate proceedings for imposition of penalties and for confiscation of the articles or tools used in commission of forest offence. It is held that the said proceedings are independent of each other. It is not, therefore, necessary for application of Section 61 that the delinquent should have been convicted of a forest offence. It is held that the said proceedings are independent of each other. It is not, therefore, necessary for application of Section 61 that the delinquent should have been convicted of a forest offence. The argument of the learned A.G.P. for the State that the forest offence can be compounded under Section 68 of the Forest Act is not of much assistance to him on the question whether the truck of the petitioner in the instant case can be released on compounding the forest offence. 7. The principal question which however has to be considered in the instant Writ Petition is of interpretation of Section 61-A(1) of the Forest Act and the procedure laid down in Section 61- B of the said Act. It is clear on reading Section 61-A(3) that there is a discretion conferred upon the Authorised Officer whether upon the belief that a forest offence has been committed the tools boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing such offence should be confiscated or not, because the word used therein is "may" and even otherwise when such a serious penalty of confiscation of the vehicle is sought to be imposed upon the delinquent all relevant aspects such as gravity or extenuating factors etc., would have to be taken into consideration keeping in mind the object of the said provision that it is intended to prevent the exploitation of the forest produce. Section 61-B (1) therefore incorporates the principles or natural justice which have to be followed by the Authorised Officer. 8. Section 61-B requires the Authorised Officer to give show cause notice to the delinquent person before any action is taken against him under Section 61-A (3) of the Forest Act If the purpose of the show cause notice is to give an opportunity, to the delinquent person upon the matters upon which the Authorised Officer is going to take action against him under Section 61-A. it is necessary that the show cause notice must contain all material allegations against the delinquent person on the basis of which action is proposed to be taken against him so that he has proper opportunity to meet the same. The provisions of Section 61-B are mandatory. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as regard the conclusion reached by the Authorised Officer, viz. The provisions of Section 61-B are mandatory. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as regard the conclusion reached by the Authorised Officer, viz. that the petitioner had been indulging for a long time in illegal activities of cutting timber wood and transporting the same there is not a whisper in the show cause notice about the same. 8A. Perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner would show that after referring to the actual facts about the forest offence alleged against him the only thing which is stated in the show cause notice is that the petitioner bail not taken any care about the use of his truck in the commission of the forest offence. Even the allegation that there was an anonymous complaint against him for which reason patrolling was introduced and also the charge against him that he was indulging in such illegal activities for a long time does not find place in the show cause notice although that is the conclusion reached by the Authorised Officer and is upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is therefore well founded that the Petitioner had no opportunity to meet the charge against him that he was indulging in such illegal activities which is held to be proved by the learned authorised officer. The impugned orders are thus clearly vitiated by basic error of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice incorporated in Section 61- B of the Forest Act and are thus liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the State has however urged before us that the petitioner was heard by the Authorised officer and also by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and therefore, full opportunity was afforded to him. He has further urged that, if necessary, the matter can be remanded and opportunity can be given to him in this regard. In our view, when there is a basic defect, viz. the defect in the show cause notice itself, the said defect cannot be cured by remanding the matter to the above authorities and their orders have therefore to be set aside. There is also some force in the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner viz. In our view, when there is a basic defect, viz. the defect in the show cause notice itself, the said defect cannot be cured by remanding the matter to the above authorities and their orders have therefore to be set aside. There is also some force in the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner viz. that the authorities below should have taken into consideration afore directing confiscation of the truck in question the factor that there was only one log of wood found in the truck for which the Range Forest Officer had recommended imposition of fine and then release of the truck. We may make it clear that we are not pronouncing on the question as to what the effect of such consideration would be. What we are emphasizing is that the said factor should have been taken into consideration by the authorities below before directing confiscation of the truck. In the result, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside: Rule made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. -Petition allowed 1. A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 328.