JUDGMENT B.K.Patel,J.In this writ application, petitioners pray to direct the opposite parties, Forest Officials, to handover 8 number of doors or to pay cost thereof amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioners. 2.Confiscation Proceeding under section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 ( for short, ‘the Act) was initiated before the opposite party no.2 the Authorized Officer on the allegation that a TATA Ace vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-25-A-5603 was transporting 84 nos. of sizes and planks. The vehicle belongs to one Pravat Pradhan. During pendency of the Confiscation Proceeding petitioner no.2 who is wife of petitioner no.1 appeared before the Authorized Officer and filed application asserting that at the time of alleged seizure by forest officials the vehicle in question was transporting 8 nos. of doors purchased by the petitioners for construction of house and they were not transporting any sizes and planks. It was contended that as doors are finished products, and not forest produce as defined under the Act, the seized doors be released in favour of the petitioner no.2. Upon verification of such claim, the Authorized Officer closed the Confiscation Proceeding and directed release of seized articles and seized vehicle on the basis of following findings: “The measurement of the seized produces as identified by the seizing officer and witnesses there on was taken. The total nos. of siris sizes came to 92 nos. instead of 84 Nos. as displayed in the seizure list out of which the common measurement was only 16 Nos that is 6’4”x4’x1” of sizes and rest measurement of the produces are not tallied to any other. During verification, it was seen that the sizes as has been shown in the seizure list seen to have been dismantled from door leaf afresh. More over, presence of grooves and nails in many more sizes support to conclude that those seized materials were fashioned also did not tally. But one point be noted that after dismantled the planks measurement in the seizure list should have tallied to the measurement taken by the verification party. Though the measurement are not equal, it is presumed that the seizure list was not prepared properly. In this connection the seizing officer and witnesses persons should be strictly warned to take proper measurement of the seized produce. Though the measurement are not equal, it is presumed that the seizure list was not prepared properly. In this connection the seizing officer and witnesses persons should be strictly warned to take proper measurement of the seized produce. Further the finished products should not have been seized on demand of TT permit as per 5(g) of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules,1980. The Section 56 of OF Act 1972 is concerned about the vehicle where the forest produces are loaded and transported without any permit. The vehicle should not have been seized until and unless justified forest produce are loaded in the vehicle. In this case through the produce seized do not attract to the forest act, the vehicle need not have been seized. In this case, the produced seized are not seizable items and hence, the seizure of vehicle is not justified.” (sic) 3. Petitioners’ case is that since it has been established on verification in the Confiscation Proceeding that sizes and planks were dismantled parts of the doors having grooves and nails and the sizes and planks kept in the range office did not tally with the seizure list, it is obvious that doors were seized. Doors transported by the petitioners in the seized vehicle were forcibly seized and subsequently dismantled in order to substantiate the allegation in the Confiscation Proceeding. However, Authorized Officer has passed order for release of forest produce shown to have been seized in the seizure list to the petitioners. As the doors belonging to the petitioners were illegally seized and dismantled, petitioners are entitled for 8 nos. of doors or cost thereof amounting to Rs.1,20,000/-. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos.1 to 3 it has been stated that during course of Confiscation Proceeding upon verification seized materials were found to be dismantled parts of the doors. Accordingly, direction has been passed for release of the said forest produce. Order having been passed for release of seized articles, petitioners are not entitled to release of the doors or for cost thereof as assessed by them. 5. Accordingly, direction has been passed for release of the said forest produce. Order having been passed for release of seized articles, petitioners are not entitled to release of the doors or for cost thereof as assessed by them. 5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Authorized Officer on the basis of materials on record and upon verification has arrived at the finding that forest produce alleged to have been seized were dismantled parts of the doors, and thereby upheld petitioners’ allegation that doors, which are finished products and not liable to be seized, were illegally seized by Forest Officials. Moreover, dismantled parts of the doors stated to have been seized did not tally with the seizure list. Though the Authorized Officer has directed to release the forest produce shown to have been seized, petitioners are entitled to the doors belonging to them or the cost thereof. 6. In reply, it was contended by the learned counsel for the State that materials on record indicate that sizes and planks were being transported in the seized vehicle. Forest Officials seized the articles and initiated the Confiscation Proceeding in good faith as sizes and planks were transported without any authority. Authorized Officer has nowhere recorded the finding that doors were seized. Rather, it is obvious from the order that dismantled parts of the doors were found to have been seized. Seized articles having been directed to be released, petitioners’ grievance stands redressed. 7. Admittedly, from the very beginning petitioners claimed that no forest produce was seized. They asserted that doors, which are finished products, belonging to them, were found in the seized vehicle. Upon verification in course of Confiscation Proceeding it was found by the Authorized Officer that sizes and planks shown to have been seized in the seizure list were in fact dismantled parts of the doors. Therefore, sizes and planks having directed to be released in favour of the petitioners, petitioners cannot claim cost of the doors. But the fact remains that seized articles are finished products for which the seizure itself has been held to be unjustified. Reassembling dismantled sizes and planks to doors would involve availing of services of carpenter. Petitioners have to incur expenses for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case cost to reassemble 8 nos. of doors is assessed at Rs.2,400/-. Reassembling dismantled sizes and planks to doors would involve availing of services of carpenter. Petitioners have to incur expenses for the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case cost to reassemble 8 nos. of doors is assessed at Rs.2,400/-. But for the unjustified seizure petitioners would not have been required to spend the sum for which we find it just to direct opposite parties to pay the amount as cost to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite parties to pay to the petitioners cost of Rs.2,400/-.