JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The petitioner Binodini Mishra has filed W.P.(C) No. 20259 of 2012 to quash the impugned judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack dated 12.09.2012 passed in F.A.O. No.129 of 2011 in dismissing the appeal preferred by her under section 56(2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereafter ‘1972 Act’) and thereby confirming the impugned order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Athgarh Division, Athgarh in O.R. Case No.6A of 2011-12 in confiscating the seized tractor/trolley bearing Registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 so also mango log measuring 1.4066 Cum to the State. She has also filed W.P.(C) No. 20260 of 2012 to quash the impugned judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Cuttack dated 12.09.2012 passed in F.A.O. No. 128 of 2011 in dismissing the appeal preferred by her under section 56(2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and thereby confirming the impugned order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Athgarh Division, Athgarh in O.R. Case No.7A of 2011-12 in confiscating the seized tractor/trolley bearing Registration Nos. OR-05T-6648/6649 so also mango log measuring 1.5532 Cum to the State. Since in both the writ petitions, the date, time and place of seizure of the vehicles with mango logs are same and the accusations are similar and similar prayer has been made, with the consent of the respective parties, the writ petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the seized tractors/trolleys bearing registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 and OR-05T-6648/6649. It is the case of the complainant Forest Range Officer, Athagarh that on 28.03.2011 while the Range staffs of Athgarh Range were performing patrolling duty within Tigiria area at about 2.00 a.m. near Batapenthei Temple in village Vegla, they found the aforesaid two tractors with trolleys were carrying mango logs. Suspecting commission of forest offence, the forest officials tried to stop the vehicles but the drivers fled away from the spot leaving the vehicles there taking advantage of darkness. The vehicles were searched and it was found that one big size mango log was loaded in each of the vehicles without any hammer inspection marks. Suspecting commission of forest offence, the forest officials tried to stop the vehicles but the drivers fled away from the spot leaving the vehicles there taking advantage of darkness. The vehicles were searched and it was found that one big size mango log was loaded in each of the vehicles without any hammer inspection marks. The vehicles were seized by the Forester, Tigiria and the police staff of Tigiria police station who were on patrolling duty were intimated to come to the spot to take the vehicles containing mango logs to Tigiria police station premises. During inspection of the vehicles, no documents regarding transportation of forest produce as well as ownership of the vehicles were available in it. The Forester, Tigiria prepared the seizure lists, took signatures of police staff at the spot and then the vehicles along with the seized timbers were taken to Tigiria police station. The Forester, Tigiria lodged a written report addressing to the officer in charge, Tigiria police station to keep the vehicles in the police station premises till arrival of A.P.R. force from Divisional Forest Office, Athgarh. Due to seizure of the vehicles with mango logs for illegal transportation, U.D. Case Nos. 20A of 2010-11 and 21A of 201011 were booked and the investigation was taken up by the Range Officer, Athgarh. During course of investigation, the petitioner appeared before the Range Officer, Athgarh on 14.05.2011 and produced certain documents in support of the ownership of the seized tractors/trolleys. She also produced some purchase receipts of mango logs claiming herself as a bona fide purchaser of the logs and prayed to release the vehicles and logs in her favour. After knowing the ownership of the vehicles, U.D. Case Nos. 20A of 2010-11 and 21A of 2010-11 were converted to O.R. Case Nos. 6A of 2011-12 and 7A of 2011-12 respectively and the petitioner was noticed and she was examined by the Investigating Officer. When the petitioner was asked to produce the T.T. permit in support of transportation of mango logs, she could not produce any such legal documents rather produced hand receipts claiming that she had purchased the logs from one Bunu Behera who had purchased the logs on auction basis from Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat. When the petitioner was asked to produce the T.T. permit in support of transportation of mango logs, she could not produce any such legal documents rather produced hand receipts claiming that she had purchased the logs from one Bunu Behera who had purchased the logs on auction basis from Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat. The Range Officer, Athgarh did not accept the receipts to be genuine and accordingly after inquiry/investigation, submitted final P.R. for violation of Rules 4 and 14 of Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereafter ‘1980 Rules’) and section 56 of the 1972 Act. He requested the authorities to initiate confiscation proceedings in respect of the seized vehicles and logs under section 56 of the 1972 Act. It is the further case of the complainant that after receipt of the final P.R., the Divisional Forest Officer, Athgarh Division authorized the Asst. Conservator of Forests, Athgarh Division to conduct the confiscation proceeding. The Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forest, Athgarh Division issued show cause notices to the petitioner and on receipt of the show cause notices, the petitioner filed her show cause replies in which though she admitted about transportation of the mango logs in her vehicles but stated that no T.T. permit was required for transportation of the said mango logs as the same were not taken from any forest. It is the case of the petitioner as per show cause that the seized logs were leased out in favour of one Bunu Behera by Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat with an auction price of Rs. 9650/- and after taking on lease, Bunu Behera sold the logs to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the Panchayat papers relating to lease in favour of Bunu Behera 3. During the confiscation proceeding from the side of the complainant, seven witnesses are examined while from the side of the petitioner, she examined herself as D.W.1. During her examination, the petitioner stated that she was the owner of tractors/trolleys bearing registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 and OR-05T-6648/6649 and those were managed by her husband Shri Laxmidhar Mishra. She further stated that on 25.03.2011 at about 12.00 noon, the officer in charge of Tigiria Police Station came to her house and asked her husband to provide the tractor/trolley for transportation of some seized timber. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 and OR-05T-6648/6649 and those were managed by her husband Shri Laxmidhar Mishra. She further stated that on 25.03.2011 at about 12.00 noon, the officer in charge of Tigiria Police Station came to her house and asked her husband to provide the tractor/trolley for transportation of some seized timber. When her husband became reluctant to provide the vehicle, the officer in charge, Tigiria Police Station forcibly took away two numbers of tractors/trolleys from her residential compound. The petitioner reported the matter to Sub-divisional Police Officer, Athagarh who did not take any action and on 29.03.2011 she came to know about the seizure of the tractors/trolleys in connection with commission of forest offence from the S.D.P.O., Athgarh. The petitioner protested to such seizures and put forth her grievances before the Range Officer, Athagarh who took her signatures on blank papers which were utilized by the Range officer for recording her statements but she stated that she had not given any statement to the Range Officer. 4. The learned Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Athgarh Division after hearing both the parties has been pleased to hold that since timber (mango logs) were found loaded in the vehicles which is a forest produce and the petitioner could not produce any legal permit for the transportation of such mango logs, it was held that the vehicles of the petitioner were used in commission of forest offence for which the petitioner is liable for punishable under Rule 21 of 1980 Rules. It was further held that though the petitioner filed a purchase receipt to establish her bona fide ownership but she has not examined the person who had granted such receipt in her favour and therefore, it was held that the purchase receipt was procured afterward for the purpose of the case only and accordingly, directed the confiscation of the seized tractors/trolleys so also the mango logs to the State. The petitioner preferred F.A.O. No. 128 of 2011 and F.A.O. No.129 of 2011 before the learned District Judge, Cuttack who has been pleased to hold that there was no permit for transportation of timber in the tractors/trolleys which was not disputed by the petitioner. It was further held that the receipt which was produced by the petitioner relating to the purchase of the mango logs was not acceptable and the initiation of confiscation proceeding cannot be said to be bad on that ground. It was further held that the receipt which was produced by the petitioner relating to the purchase of the mango logs was not acceptable and the initiation of confiscation proceeding cannot be said to be bad on that ground. The learned District Judge disbelieved the case of the petitioner to be a bonafide purchaser of mango logs and accordingly dismissed the appeals. 5. On the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20259 of 2012, Bunu Behera and Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat were impleaded as opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 and notices were issued to them. Though the opposite party no.2 entered appearance through his counsel but nobody appeared for the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.2 Bunu Behera filed an affidavit indicating therein that the Grama Panchayat of Chandrasekhar Prasad had put on auction one mango tree uprooted in the cyclone in the Panchayat Office on 23.03.2011 which was finalized in his favour vide auction sheet dated 23.03.2011 being the highest bidder with bid amount of Rs.9650/- and Executive Officer, Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat issued money receipt no.1180 dated 23.03.2011. It is further stated in the affidavit that the mango tree was cut into two logs and sold to the petitioner at a price of Rs.12,600/-against a hand written receipt and those logs were permitted to be shifted through two tractors and trolleys bearing Registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991 and OR-05-T-6648 on 28.03.2011 vide transit recommendation dated 28.03.2011 issued by the Sarpanch, Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat to village Bindhanima. The opposite party no.2 annexed the auction sheet, money receipt, hand written receipt, transit recommendation as Annexures-A/2, B/2, C/2 and D/2 respectively. 6. Mr. OR-05-AJ-9991 and OR-05-T-6648 on 28.03.2011 vide transit recommendation dated 28.03.2011 issued by the Sarpanch, Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat to village Bindhanima. The opposite party no.2 annexed the auction sheet, money receipt, hand written receipt, transit recommendation as Annexures-A/2, B/2, C/2 and D/2 respectively. 6. Mr. B.S. Tripathy-1, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had filed documents like money receipt dated 23.03.2011 of Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat in favour of Bunu Behera, photocopy of auction notice of Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat, photocopy of auction notice Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat and photocopy of auction sheet of Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat dated 23.03.2011, handwritten money receipt issued by Bunu Behera in favour of the petitioner and copy of transit permission dated 28.03.2011 issued by Sarpanch, Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat for transportation of mango logs in the tractor in question to village Bindhanima and the effect and relevancy of such documents filed by the petitioner has not been considered in its proper perspective either by the Authorized Officer or by the learned District Judge and in a mechanical manner the order of confiscation of the vehicles and seized mango logs was passed. It is further contended that when no forest offence was committed and no T.T. permit was required for transpiration of mango logs which were purchased by Bunu Behera in an open auction from Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat and subsequently by the petitioner from the said Bunu Behera, the Authorized Officer should not have disbelieved the case of the petitioner with observation that the purchase receipt was procured afterwards for the purpose of the case. It is further contended that the learned District Judge has also failed to appreciate the documentary evidence which were available on record and mechanically rejected the appeals without any cogent reason. It is further submitted that Bunu Behera has filed an affidavit on 09.01.2017 before this Court regarding the purchase of log in question through auction being held by Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat and that the mango log was cut into two pieces and sold to the petitioner at a price of Rs.12,600/- and both the logs were permitted to be shifted through two tractors vide transit recommendation dated 28.03.2011 issued by Sarpanch, Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat. It is further contended that the opposite party Bunu Behera also filed some documents in that respect vide Annexure-A/2 and Annexure-B/2 which were also produced by the petitioner before the Range Officer. It is further contended that since the petitioner was a bonafide purchaser of the logs which were seized on 28.03.2011 and both the Authorized Officer as well as the appellate authority has failed to appreciate the case of the petitioner and no forest offence has been committed by the petitioner nor any T.T. permit under section 1980 Rules is required in the facts scenario, the impugned orders of confiscation issued by the Authority Officer -cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests so also the impugned judgments of the learned District Judge should be quashed and the tractors/trolleys along with the seized logs be released in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Chitta Rangan Swain, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State supported not only the orders of confiscation but also the impugned judgments which were passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack and contended that in the writ jurisdiction, the concurrent finding of facts should not be disturbed as there is no illegality or impropriety in the same. He produced the entire case records of O.R. Case Nos. 6A of 2011-12 and 7A of 2011-12. 7. In a writ of certiorari, it is to be seen on examination of record as to whether the quasi-judicial authority or the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. When the errors cannot be said to be the errors of the law apparent on the face of the record, but they are merely formal or technical errors and errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, error in drawing inferences or omission to draw inferences, or in other words, errors which a Court sitting as a Court of appeal only could have examined, there is no scope to exercise such jurisdiction in a certiorari proceeding. If admissible evidence has been ignored and inadmissible evidence has been considered by the Court below which had influenced a finding, the same can be quashed by a writ of certiorari. If a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which could be corrected in a writ of certiorari. If admissible evidence has been ignored and inadmissible evidence has been considered by the Court below which had influenced a finding, the same can be quashed by a writ of certiorari. If a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which could be corrected in a writ of certiorari. A finding wholly unwarranted by evidence is amenable to correction by a writ of certiorari. If there is non-consideration of relevant materials which were produced by the parties while taking a decision, such decision is no decision in the eye of law and therefore, the writ of certiorari can be issued to quash such decision. Law is well settled that the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate, revisional or corrective jurisdiction. In a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, maybe, by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. 8. In the present case, the ownership of the seized tractors/trolleys bearing Registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 and OR-05T-6648/6649 with the petitioner is not disputed. The stand taken by the petitioner in her show cause and her statement given before the Authorized Officer are discrepant. 8. In the present case, the ownership of the seized tractors/trolleys bearing Registration Nos. OR-05-AJ-9991/9992 and OR-05T-6648/6649 with the petitioner is not disputed. The stand taken by the petitioner in her show cause and her statement given before the Authorized Officer are discrepant. Whereas in the show cause, the petitioner had taken a stand that the mango logs were purchased from one Bunu Behera who had taken it on lease from Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat on auction and filed documents from Panchayat in support of her stand but in her statement before the Authorized Officer, she stated that the officer in charge, Tigiria Police Station forcibly took away the tractors/trolleys from her residential compound as her husband became reluctant to provide the vehicle to police for transportation of some seized timber on 25.03.2011 and that she came to know on 29.03.2011 that false case has been foisted on the accusation that timber was being illegally transported in her vehicles. Except filing xerox copies of some documents, the petitioner even did not examine either Bunu Behera or her driver or any member of Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat in support of her stand which was taken in her show cause. If the statement of the petitioner given before the Authorized Officer is taken into account then the tractors/trolleys would not have been available with the petitioner for transporting the mango logs after the alleged purchase from Bunu Behera as according to her, the vehicles had already been taken away by the Officer in charge of Tigiria police station forcibly. She has even stated in her cross-examination that she did not know Bunu Behera of Chandrasekharpur. Therefore, the learned Authorized Officer was justified in observing that at the time of filing of show cause, the petitioner has not stated anything regarding taking her vehicles forcibly by Tigiria police on 25.03.2011 or about her allegation before Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Athagarh rather she admitted about the transportation for her bonafide use. When the petitioner had taken two diametrically opposite stands and for neither of the stands, any clinching material was adduced, the learned Authorized Officer is quite justified in placing reliance on the version of the official witnesses examined by the complainant. When the petitioner had taken two diametrically opposite stands and for neither of the stands, any clinching material was adduced, the learned Authorized Officer is quite justified in placing reliance on the version of the official witnesses examined by the complainant. Confiscation of a vehicle can be ordered only when there is satisfaction by the Authorized Officer that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce and the vehicle was used for committing such offence. Even when a forest offence is committed with the knowledge or connivance of the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle would be liable for confiscation even though the owner might not have any knowledge or connivance. In order to escape from the order of confiscation, it must be proved that the owner had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against the use of the vehicle in respect of commission of the forest offence. Therefore, in view of section 56(2-c) of 1972 Act, a duty is cast on the owner of a vehicle in a confiscation proceeding to prove that the vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance or knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any and that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against the use of the vehicle in respect of forest offence. In view of the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner in her show cause vis-a-vis in her statement before Authorized Officer, when the petitioner has failed to prove the requirements as envisaged under section 56(2-c) of 1972 Act in order to escape from the order of confiscation, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the learned Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer has not exceeded its jurisdiction and he has proceeded in accordance with the essential requirements of the law. There is no apparent error of the law on the face of the record and the finding of fact is based on evidence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents of Chandrasekhar Prasad Grama Panchayat should have been accepted is not acceptable when the material witnesses to prove such documents have not been examined by the petitioner in spite of getting reasonable opportunity of hearing and when in her statement before the Authorized Officer, the petitioner herself has not placed reliance on such documents rather taken a different stand altogether. When she has gone to the extent of saying that she did not know Bunu Behera of Chandrasekharpur, the entire plea set up by her that she was a bonafide purchaser of mango log from Bunu Behera falls flat on the face of it and acts like a boomerang to destroy her thoughtless unfounded plea. There is no perversity in the findings of the learned Authorized Officer and therefore, the learned District Judge was quite justified in dismissing the appeals and thereby confirming the orders of confiscation. In the result, both the writ petitions being devoid of merits, stand dismissed.