JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — By means of this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the confiscation proceeding (O.R. Case No.50-B of 2010-11) initiated under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short ‘the Act’) upon seizure of the truck bearing registration number AP-16-T-2969 along with the materials as per the offence report (Annexure-4) by holding that such seizure is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the vehicle in question loaded with M.S. round bars of 16170 Kgs., 160 bun¬dles of pressed dry sal leaf plates and 240 nos. of plastic tray was passing through N.H.5 at Nalanga near Bhadrak, the same was seized by the forest officials on the ground of violation of Rules-4, 12 and 14 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (in short ‘the Rules’) and confiscation proceeding was initiated. The Forest Range Officer submitted the P.R. on 16.5.2010 along with the seizure list before the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak against three accused persons including the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak also disposed of a petition filed under Section 457, Cr.P.C. directing release of the seized M.S. round bars. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that seizure of the vehicle along with the materials and initia¬tion of the proceeding under Section 56 of the Act are illegal, since no T.T. permit is required for carrying Sal leaves and pressed Sal leaf plates as they are not “forest produce” within the meaning of the Act. The T.T. permit will only be required for transporting the forest produce. In support of his contention, Mr. Das relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Padamabati Lenka v. State of Orissa and another; 2006 (II) OLR 109 ; in which it has been held that Sal leaves are not forest produce when they are not found in or brought from the forest. 4. Mr. Senapati, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that pressed sal leaf plates are coming under the definition of forest produce in view of the Government Resolution dated 27.09.2002. Relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Muralidhar Sahoo & others v. State of Orissa; 2003 (I) OLR 178 , he further submitted that T.T. permit is required for trans¬portation of the Sal leaves. 5. Relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Muralidhar Sahoo & others v. State of Orissa; 2003 (I) OLR 178 , he further submitted that T.T. permit is required for trans¬portation of the Sal leaves. 5. Perused the records of this case as well as 2(b) C.C. Case No.7 of 2010, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties and the resolution of the State Government. In the instant case, this Court is required to decide whether Sal leaves are forest produce when they are not found in or brought from the forest ? To decide the above question, it is necessary to go through the Act and the Rules. Section 2(g) of the Act deals with “forest produce”. Section 2(g) is divided into two parts. Part (i) i.e. Section 2(g)(i) lists certain items as forest produce “whether they are found in, or brought from a forest or not”. But so far as Part (ii) is concerned, i.e. Section 2(g)(ii) certain items have been listed as forest produce and “they are forest produce only when they are found in or brought from a forest. For better appreciation of the points involved in this case, Sections 2(g)(i) and 2(g)(ii) of the Act and Rule-4 of the Rules are quoted hereunder. “Section 2(g) : “Forest Produce” includes - (i) the following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say - (a) timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catchu, wood-oil, resin, nature varnish, bark, tussar cocoon, lac, gums, roots of Patal Garuda, Mahua flower, mahua seeds, myrabolans, kendu leaves, sandal wood, tamarind, hill-broom, siali leaves, siali fibres, sal seeds; (b) wild animals and wild birds, skins, tusks, horns, bones, and all other parts or produce of wild life; and (c) such other produce as may be notified by the State Govern¬ment; and (ii) the following when found in or brought from a forest that is to say - (a) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of thees not hereinbefore mentioned; (b) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants; (c) honey, wax and arrowroot (d) peat, surface, oil, rock, sand and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries.” “Rule-4. Transit Permits - Except as provided in Rule 5, all forest produce in transit by land, rail or water shall be covered by a permit hereinafter call the “Transit Permit” to be issued free of cost by the Divisional Forest Officer or by Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by him in that behalf : Provided that the Range Officer or a Forester when duly authorized in that behalf by the Divisional Forest Officer may issue transit permit in case where no verification at the stump site is necessary. Provided further that in respect of a minor forest produce collected by the Orissa State Tribal Development co-operative Corporation Limited, a Branch Manager or a Divisional Manager and in respect of tassar cocoon collected by the State Tassar Co-operative Society Limited, Orissa, the Assistant Director of Sericulture can issue transit permits; Provided also that for the removal of timber and fire-wood obtained from trees (excluding those species mentioned in Sched¬ule-II) up to two hundred and fifty in number raised in “Farm Forestry” or “Forest Farming for the Rural Poor” plantation under the Orissa Social Forestry Project, the Range Officer may issue the transit permit; and Provided also that for removal of bamboos for industrial and commercial purposes from the Sale depots of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, the Supervisors of the said Corporation who have passed Matriculation may issue the transit permit.” 6. A bare reading of Rule-4 makes it clear that only T.T. permit is necessary for transporting forest produce. As per Section 2(g)(ii) of the Act, only when Sal leaves are found in or brought from the forest, they are forest produce. Admittedly, in the instant case, the vehicle in question was intercepted on N.H.5 at Nalanga near Bhadrak and Sal leaf plates were seized besides other materials. Nowhere in the seizure list and the statement attached to the P.R. there is any mention that these Sal leaf plates were found in or brought from any forest. On going through the decision relied upon by the learned Addl. Government Advocate in Muralidhar Sahoo’s case (supra), it is found that the question with which this Court is concerned in this case was not an issue in that case. There, the validity of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Government order in Forest and Environment Depart¬ment communicated in letter No.17811/F & E dated 7.11.2000 was the subject matter of challenge. Government Advocate in Muralidhar Sahoo’s case (supra), it is found that the question with which this Court is concerned in this case was not an issue in that case. There, the validity of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Government order in Forest and Environment Depart¬ment communicated in letter No.17811/F & E dated 7.11.2000 was the subject matter of challenge. The question which was discussed in that case was whether leaf plates and leaf cups made out of sal leaves changes their character and whether it can be said that once Sal leaves are made into cups and plates they ceased to be Sal leaves. The said decision is, therefore, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the question raised in the case at hand was the subject matter of consideration in Smt. Padambati Lenka (supra) and there a Divi¬sion Bench of this Court has held that any person who collects Sal leaves which are found outside the forest and does not bring leaves from the forest does not commit any offence and that Sal leaves are forest produce only when they are found in or brought from a forest. In the said decision, this Court has taken note of Muralidhar Sahoo.’s case (supra). 7. In the above view of the matter, by applying the ratio decided in the case of Smt. Padambati Lenka (supra), this Court holds that the seized Sal leaf plates do not come within the purview of Section 2(g) of the Act and the seizure made by the forest officials was illegal and arbitrary. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the confiscation proceeding is quashed. The vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith. S.K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petition allowed.