Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 857 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ravi Kumar Thakur

2006-07-13

K.K.LAHOTI

body2006
ORDER 1. This petition is ·directed against the order Annexure P-10 dated 15.2.1997 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Mandla in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 27/96 by which the appeal filed by Deepak Kumar Kachhwaha was allowed and the order confiscating the saw-mill of Deepak Kumar Kachhwaha was set aside on following grounds: (i) That no notice under section 12 (2) of M.P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on Deepak Kumar and Ravi Kumar. As the mandatory notice was not served on the affected persons, the confiscation of saw-mill was found bad. (ii) That under section 7 of the aforesaid Act, only the licensing authority Was empowered to enter, inspect, search and seizure but the seizure has been made by the Range Officer who was not empowered under section 7 of the Act. On the aforesaid two grounds, miscellaneous appeal filed by Deepak Kumar Kachhwaha was allowed and order confiscating the saw mill was set aside. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner State submitted: (i) That the Range Officer was empowered under section 7 vide authorization dated 11.4.1992 Annexure P-9 and this aspect has not been considered by the Additional District Judge. (ii) That a due notice was issued to the respondents, copies of which are on record Annexure P-3 and P-4 and acknowledgements Annexure P-5 & P-6 are on record which show that a show cause notice was duly served on the owner of the saw-mill and teak wood. It is submitted that the order Annexure P-1 0 passed by the Additional District Judge be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Additional District Judge and submitted that though Annexure P-3 and P-4 are notices but these were not served on the respondents. Impugned order Annexure P-7 was passed by the Licensing Authority on 26.9.1995 while Annexure P-5 & P-6 reflect that these were served on 28.9.1995 after passing of the order Annexure P-7. In these circumtances, finding recorded by the Additional District Judge so far as it relates to non-service of the notice is in accordance with law. 4. Impugned order Annexure P-7 was passed by the Licensing Authority on 26.9.1995 while Annexure P-5 & P-6 reflect that these were served on 28.9.1995 after passing of the order Annexure P-7. In these circumtances, finding recorded by the Additional District Judge so far as it relates to non-service of the notice is in accordance with law. 4. So far as first contention of the petitioner that vide Annexure P-9, the Range Officer was authorized under section 7 of the Act is concerned, this order was not produced before the Court below and the finding of the Court below is on the basis of the material available before the Court. 5. To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, the relevant provision section 7 (l) of Adhiniyam and 12 (2) are as under: "7. Power of entry, inspection, search, seizure, etc.- (1) For the purpose of ascertaining the position or examining the working of any saw mill or saw pit or with a view to secure compliance of the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the licensing officer or any other person authorized by the licensing officer in this behalf may - (a) enter and inspect any saw mill and saw pit; (b) examine and for this purpose order the production of any documents, books, registers or records in the possession or power of any person having the control of, or employed in connection with, any saw mill and saw pit; (c) search any person or search any premises vehicle, machine, tools and equipments used or intended to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder and may stop any vehicle or persons for the purpose; (d) seize any wood, plants and machinery, tool, vehicle and any other article which he suspects is already involved or used or is about to be involved or used in contravening the provisions of this Act, or rules made thereunder. 12 (2) No order of confiscating any property shall be made under subsection (1) unless the person from whom the property is seized and in the case the owner of such property is known, such person is given - (a) a notice in writing -informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property; (b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for' confiscation; and (c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter". 6. So far as authorization is concerned, Annexure P-9 is an authorization and the aforesaid authorization was issued on 11.4.1992. The seizure was made on 4.4.1995 after issuance of authorization, hence the Range Officer was duly authorized under section 7 to take action for search and seizure. In aforesaid circumstances, contention of the learned counsel for State that the Range Officer was duly authorized to search and seizure of the teak wood and saw-mill is correct. 7. Now the second question may be examined. Sub-section (2) of section 12 specifically states that no order of confiscation of any property shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the person from whom the property is seized and in the case the owner of such property is known, such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which the confiscation is proposed. In this case, saw mill was seized from Ravi Kumar Thakur. Though it is submitted by the petitioner that Ravi Kumar Thakur was served by the petitioners but no document is on record to reflect receiving any notice by Ravi Kumar Thakur. Annexures P-5 and P-6 relate to Deepak Kumar Kachhwaha and Rajesh Kachhwaha and not to Ravi Kumar Thakur. Apart from this order Annexure P- 7 by which saw mill was confiscated was passed on 26.9.1995 while Annexure P-5 and P6 states that these were served on 28.9.1995. Even if contention of the petitioners is accepted that the notices Annexure P-3 and P-4 were served then as per documents produced by the petitioners, these notices were served on 28.9.1995 after passing of the Annexure P-7. 8. Learned 1st Additional District Judge after perusal of the record found that no such notice was served on Ravi Kumar Thakur from whom saw-mill was seized. 8. Learned 1st Additional District Judge after perusal of the record found that no such notice was served on Ravi Kumar Thakur from whom saw-mill was seized. The impugned order so far as it relates to non-service of notice under section 12 (2) of the Act is concerned, there is no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.