JUDGMENT :- (Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 9.4.2003 made in W.P.No.5296 of 2000.) D. MURUGESAN, J. This writ appeal is directed at the instance of the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Environment and Forest Department questioning the order of the learned single Judge dated 9.4.2003 made in the writ petition. 2. The facts giving rise to the writ appeal are as follows:- The first respondent by name K. Muthusamy is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-27-Z-7706. The said vehicle was intercepted by the forest officials during the course of search and it was found that the said lorry was carrying wood under the cover of Form-II permit issued for transport of firewood vide permit No.08 2805 by the Ranger, Kottapatty on 6.12.97. During the enquiry, as both the driver and the cleaner of the lorry made contradictory statements giving rise to suspicion, the wooden logs were unloaded only to find that 11 rosewood logs were concealed inside the lorry along with 100 other logs of identical and associated species without a licence or permit. On the ground that those logs were transported without a valid permit and the offence was committed in respect of such timber, the lorry was seized on 6.12.97 in exercise of the power under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (for short, "the Act") and thereafter, it was confiscated by a subsequent order dated 10.9.98 in exercise of the power under Section 49-A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said confiscation order, the owner filed an appeal under Section 49-D of the Act in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1998 taken on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. The learned Judge, after setting aside the order of confiscation, directed the release of the vehicle to the owner subject to certain conditions. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before the learned single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. S.N. Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. A. Muthuraman, learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the owner would be entitled to the release of the lorry. Hence the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. S.N. Kirubanandam, learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. A. Muthuraman, learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The only question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the owner would be entitled to the release of the lorry. There is no dispute that the first respondent is the owner of the lorry and that the said lorry carried, among other wood, 11 logs of rosewood and 100 allied wood of different species, for which there was no permit. The transportation of the above produce was admitted by both the driver and the cleaner of the vehicle. 5. Keeping the above in mind, the issue is to be considered. In terms of Section 41 of the Act, when there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber or produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence could be seized by the Forest Officer. After the seizure is effected, a notice under Section 49-B of the Act could be issued to the person from whom the seizure is effected stating the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the produce. On receipt of such notice, the owner of the vehicle should prove that he had no knowledge about such transportation. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 49-B, the burden shifts on the owner. A careful perusal of the above said provision would show that such burden could be discharged only by production of evidence either oral or documentary and cannot be understood for a mere explanation of denial. 6. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 19.5.98, the owner submitted his explanation on 3.6.98. Though in the said explanation the owner has stated that he had no knowledge of the transport of the rosewood, in our opinion, by the said mere explanation, it cannot be said that he has discharged his burden of proof that lies on him in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 49-B of the Act. Though in the said explanation the owner has stated that he had no knowledge of the transport of the rosewood, in our opinion, by the said mere explanation, it cannot be said that he has discharged his burden of proof that lies on him in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 49-B of the Act. By the said section, the legislature has intended to shift the burden on the owner of the vehicle as, in the normal course, whenever show cause notices are issued, the usual defence of denial alone is made and the same cannot be taken as conclusive. Hence the owner of the vehicle has not discharged his burden of proving the fact that he had no knowledge about the transport of the rosewood and other allied forest produce. In the circumstances, the confiscation made by the order dated 10.9.98 cannot be found fault with. Therefore, in our considered view, both the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 17.12.99 as well as the order of the learned single Judge dated 9.4.2003 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside. The writ appeal is allowed and the order of confiscation dated 10.9.98 is restored and the appellant is directed to repossess the vehicle in question. Consequently, W.A.M.P.No.4586 of 2004 is closed. No costs.