Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 100 (MP)

Govind v. Up-Vanmandladhikari, Dhar

2004-02-03

A.M.SAPRE

body2004
JUDGMENT Heard Shri C.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. Verma, learned Government Advocate for respondents. It is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arising out of an order, dated 8.7.1997, passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 484 of 1997, filed by the petitioner, which in turn arises out of an order dated 1.11.1996, passed by the appellate authority in Case No. 5573/18, which in turn confirms the order passed by the competent authority in Case No. 5573/18, dated 2.3.1996. These orders were passed by the revision authority under the provisions of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter called as 'Adhiniyam'). The petitioner is infact aggrieved by a confiscation proceeding initiated by the Forest authorities under the provisions of Indian Forest Act read with the provision of Adhiniyam, 1969, referred supra. In these proceedings, the tractor bearing No. MP/11/ N3780 and trolly bearing No. MP/11/A/3781 was seized by the Forest authorities, which, according to petitioners, belong to them. It was noticed by the Forest authorities that this tractor - trolly was being used for carrying some forest produce (teak wood) illegally without obtaining necessary pass/permission from the authorities concerned. The impugned orders, referred supra, were passed in those confiscation proceedings against the petitioner throughout and hence, in writ. In somewhat similar circumstances, an issue came up before the Supreme Court of India in a case reported in 2000 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 1 = (2000) 1 SCC 323 [Dinesh Kumar Kartike v. State of M.P. and others]. In this case also, proceedings for confiscation of a tractor - trolly were questioned under the aforementioned two Acts. Their Lordships of Supreme Court then referred to and relied upon section 19 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam which empowers the Forest authorities to release the tractor-trolly under the Adhiniyam, provided the person concerned complies the requirement of section 19 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam. Their Lordships felt that since the said section was not taken care of nor noticed by the Forest authorities while passing the order and hence, the matter was remanded to the Forest authorities for its, examination in the light of the requirement of section 19 (1) (b). Their Lordships felt that since the said section was not taken care of nor noticed by the Forest authorities while passing the order and hence, the matter was remanded to the Forest authorities for its, examination in the light of the requirement of section 19 (1) (b). I am inclined to quote in verbatim the entire judgment of Supreme Court to enable the Forest authorities to pass the orders in the light of the observations made by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case: "2. After hearing the counsel on both sides and after going into the facts, we are of the view that the following order would meet the ends of justice. 3. The appellant challenges an order of confiscation of truck bearing No. MPQ 6789. Notice was issued by this Court on 16.11.1998 calling upon the respondent to show cause why an appropriate order in terms of section 19 (1) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 should not be passed. Section 19 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows: '18. Composition of offences -- (1) The State Government may, by notification, empower a Forest Officer - (a) * * * (b) When any property other than a specified forest produce has been seized as liable to confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer.' On a perusal of the SLP paper-book, we find that the Forest Officer concerned had not focused his attention on the enabling provision of section 19 (1) (b) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the Forest Officer concerned to consider the question of release of the truck already confiscated under section 19 (1) (b) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs." In my opinion, this Court has to issue directions keeping in view the directions given by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar's case, supra. Accordingly, while maintaining all the orders passed in this writ petition, it is directed to concerned Forest authorities to pass similar orders in the light of the requirement of section 19 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam and keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. Let it be completed within a month from today. Accordingly, while maintaining all the orders passed in this writ petition, it is directed to concerned Forest authorities to pass similar orders in the light of the requirement of section 19 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam and keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. Let it be completed within a month from today. With these observations, petition partly succeeds.