JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition is filed assailing the order under Anenxure-1 passed by O.P.1, Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Keonjhar Division in O.R. Case No.25BJ of 2016-2017 and further the judgment passed in F.A.O.No.5 of 2017 thereby directing for confiscation of the tractor and trolley. 2. Short background involved in the case is that on 25.4.2016 the staff of the B.J.P. Range while performing patrolling duty near Champei P.R.F. detected a tractor bearing Regn. No.OD09-9122 along with trolley bearing Regn. No.OD-09-9123 loaded with 60 cft. boulder by making illegal quarry. On seeing the forest personnel, the driver of the vehicle fled away leaving the vehicle on the spot. Consequently, the Forester seized the vehicle for committing the offence under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 for the violation of provision under Section 27(1)(b) of Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and also for violation of Rules-4 & 12 of the Orissa Timber & Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 ( in short, "OTT Rules"). On being noticed, the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle appeared before the O.P.2, the Range Officer, B.J.P. Forest Range Office. By filing a written report, the owner submitted his innocence and non-involvement in the commission of forest offence rather attributed to the charge of the driver of the vehicle committing such offence without consent and/or prior knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Finding denial of the owner on the allegation, a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act was initiated. Trial being concluded, O.P.1, Authorised Officer-cumAssistant Conservator of Forest, Keonjhar Division by order dated 25.1.2017 while holding the owner responsible directed for confiscation of the vehicle along with its trolley as well as the forest produce to the Government. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed in confirmation of the order passed by O.P.1, vide judgment dated 8.2.2018 involving F.A.O. No.5 of 2017 finds place at Annexure-1. 3. Sri P.S.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed by both the authorities and taking this Court to the provision at Rule-4 of the OTT Rules submitted that the provision at Rule-4 and further for having no inter-district movement of the material produced, the provision of Rule-4 of the OTT Rules has no application to the case. Sri P.S.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders passed by both the authorities and taking this Court to the provision at Rule-4 of the OTT Rules submitted that the provision at Rule-4 and further for having no inter-district movement of the material produced, the provision of Rule-4 of the OTT Rules has no application to the case. Further taking this Court to Rule-5(I)(i) of the OTT Rules read with Rule-2(h) of the Rules submitted that the boulder being a minor forest produce, no transit permit is required, referring to a decision of this Court in the case of Baikuntha Swain vrs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.7403/2016), Sri Das, learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that there is direct application of the judgment therein to the petitioner's case, and thus prayed for interference and setting aside of both the impugned orders as well as the judgment. 4. Sri K.K.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate in opposition to the claim of the petitioner on reiteration of the stand of the Forest Officials in the proceedings undertaken below submitted that the plea of the petitioner has no force. Further taking this Court to the observations and findings of the original authority involving the order at Annexure-1, Sri Mishra submitted that the order at Annexure-1 for the discussions therein has no infirmity. Sri Mishra further taking this Court to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anatha Bandhu Mandal vrs. State of Orissa & Others , (2015) 2 OrissaLR 1 submitted that there has been right application of this judgment by the appellate authority. 5. Looking to the factual scenario involving the case, this Court here finds, the petitioner has been tried involving a proceeding under Section 56 of the Forest Act on violation of Section 27(1)(b) of Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and the amendment made therein and further for violation of Rules-4 & 12 of the OTT Rules. The allegation involved herein is that the tractor and the trolley under confiscation order was carrying boulder without having permission of the competent authority. The allegation involved herein is that the tractor and the trolley under confiscation order was carrying boulder without having permission of the competent authority. This Court from the definitions chambers therein, particularly keeping in view SubRule-(h) of Rule-2 of the OTT Rules reads as follows :- "2.Definitions-(h)-"Minor Forest Produce" means forest produce other than timber, fire-wood, charcoal and bamboos." Looking to the nature of item under seizure being boulder, there remains no doubt that the boulder comes under minor forest produce. Looking to the charge of offence involving the petitioner under Rules-4, 5 & 12 of the OTT Rules, this Court finds, the said Rules read as follows :- "4. Transit permit - Except as provided in Rule 5, all forest produce in transit by land, rail or water shall be covered by a permit hereinafter called the "Transit Permit" to be issued free of cost by the Divisional Forest Officer or by the 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 cases 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 Ltd., a Branch Manager or a Divisional Manager and in respect of tassar cocoon collected by the State Tassar Co-operative Society Ltd., 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 Schedule-II) up to two hundred and fifty in number raised in "Farm Forestry" or "Forest Farming for the Rural Poor" plantations under the Orissa Social Forestry Project, the Range Officer may issue the transit permit]: [Provided also that for removal of bamboos for industrial and commercial purposes from the Sale depots of the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., the Supervisors of the said Corporation who have passed Matriculation may issue the transit permit]. Then Rule-5 provides cases in which permits are not required. Rule 5 of the OTT Rules reads as follows :- "5. Then Rule-5 provides cases in which permits are not required. Rule 5 of the OTT Rules reads as follows :- "5. Cases in which permit shall not be required - (1) No transit permit shall be required to cover transit of forest produce in the following cases, namely: (a) for the transit from the contract area of forest produce purchased by the Forest Contractors whose contracts are governed by the Orissa Forest Contract Rules and duly covered by a coupe permit; (b) for the transit of forest produce whose removal is covered by Forest Department permits; (c) for the transit of minerals leased out under the Mineral Concession Rules; (d) for the transport of 1 [Bamboo] timber and fire-wood bearing Orissa Forest Departments hammer mark where removal is covered by depot permit; (e) for removal of forest produce other than timber, bamboos and minerals of any description required by transits, having recognized rights under any law in force for their bona fide domestic use but not for trade or barter subject to the condition that Tribals can transport or possess up to fifty Kgs. of tamarind and ten bundles of hill brooms without transit permit; (f) for timbers not grown in India; (g) for timber that is cut or fashioned otherwise than is usually done before timber is removed from the forests or the saw mills and saw pits; (h) for fire-wood not exceeding one head load; (i) for transport of minor forest produce within the district except lac, tassar, myrabolans, gums and resin, root or patalagaruda, sal seed, tamarind and hill brooms, subject to such limit of transport and storage without transit permit as may be notified by State Government in the Official Gazette for different items; (j) for transit of timber and fire-wood obtained from those species mentioned in Schedule-III in the areas mentioned against each. (2) When any forest produce removed by permits referred to in Clauses (a) (b) and (d) of Sub-rule (1), are unloaded at their destinations, they cannot be transported under the authority of the said permits unless transit permits are obtained under Rule 4. 12. (2) When any forest produce removed by permits referred to in Clauses (a) (b) and (d) of Sub-rule (1), are unloaded at their destinations, they cannot be transported under the authority of the said permits unless transit permits are obtained under Rule 4. 12. Retention of Transit Permit - Any person, to whom a Transit Permit is issued under these rules shall be bound to follow the direction given in the transit permit and to retain it with him so long as the forest produce covered by the transit permit, remain in his possession and to produce it for inspection at any time before it is disposed of if and when required by any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Forester." Reading of Rule-4, this Court finds, all forest produce except as provided in Rule-5, in transit by land, rail or water shall be covered by a permit called as "Transit Permit" to be issued by the D.F.O. or by Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by him in his behalf. Rule-5 provides certain relaxation from the purview of the transit permit. Rule-5(h)(i) of the OTT Rules prescribes for transportation of minor forest produce within the district except lac, tassar, myrabolans, gums and resin, root of patalagaruda, sal seed, tamarind and hill brooms. There is no requirement of transit permit. 6. From the discussions involving the facts leading to the initiation of the forest offence case, the discussions involving both the impugned orders, the material involved in the seizure being boulder and for the discussions herein above on the provision of law, the boulder comes within the definition of minor forest produce. Looking to the requirement of transit permit, as provided in Rules-4 & 5 of the OTT Rules, this Court finds, Rules 1980 does not prescribe any transit permit for transportation of minor forest produce within the district except the items mentioned therein certainly does not include boulder. In the foregoing circumstances, this Court finds, the question needs to be decided here is as to whether the seized item, i.e., boulder seized from the vehicle was being transported within the district or not so that there would be violation of Rules-4 & 12 for the boulder being transported without a licence ? The office report discloses certain Officers of the particular Range at about 11.30 a.m. detected a tractor bearing Regn. No.OD-09-9122 along with trolley bearing Regn. The office report discloses certain Officers of the particular Range at about 11.30 a.m. detected a tractor bearing Regn. No.OD-09-9122 along with trolley bearing Regn. No.OD-09- 9123 inside Champei P.R.F. and the boulders were being loaded in the trolley. While they were about to reach the spot, the driver and Others accompanied the vehicle fled away noticing the persons in uniform approaching the vehicle. The raiding party traced 60 cft. of boulder from the seized vehicle. Consequently, the petitioner was charged for violation of provision contained in Section 27(1)(b) of the Orissa Forest Act as well as Rules-4 & 12 of the OTT Rules resulting initiation of a proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. On his appearance the petitioner submitted a show cause. In the show cause the petitioner while pleading that he has no involvement in the offence nor has given any consent to the driver for committing such offence, accordingly prayed that he is not guilty of the offence alleged. The petitioner rather charged when the vehicle was moving the Forest Guard rather deployed there, particularly the complainant threatened the driver for lifting of Baggies. When the driver became reluctant to carry out their order, they dragged the driver from the vehicle forcibly and seized the vehicle showing the vehicle carrying boulders belonging to the road Contractor and gathered by village Contractor to repair the village road, further on the premises of the vehicle being carried a negligible load requested for dropping the proceeding. This clearly makes at least some amount of admission on the material being carried and seized. In the trial the petitioner examined the driver as well as himself as the owner. Looking to the evidence of D.W.2, the driver clearly made a statement that the vehicle was in his zima being put by the owner on the date of event, the particular tractor was also engaged in the road repairing in the locality and on being asked by the Contractor undertaking the road repairing, he had loaded the stones lying on the road. Thus, the driver also admitted that the tractor was transporting boulder. The driver rather alleged that the Forest Officials attempted blackmailing him, for which he fled away from the spot. Thus, the driver also admitted that the tractor was transporting boulder. The driver rather alleged that the Forest Officials attempted blackmailing him, for which he fled away from the spot. For the threatening of the Forest Officials, he ran away from the spot and left for Joda area without even informing his owner, who had produced him for witness purpose tracing him after three months of the incident. For the inconsistent statement and for not informing the owner on the alleged threaten of the forest official and for the first time deposing the same in the trial of the matter, such statement remains unbelievable. At the same time, the owner appearing as D.W.1 admitted that the vehicle remained in the custody of the driver being engaged on road repairing work at the relevant point of time. He stated that he only came to know regarding seizure of the vehicle on 25.4.2016 by reading about the incident of seizure of tractor through newspaper on 25.4.2016. The owner took the simple plea that the driver carrying the materials under seizure on the instruction of the Contractor while submitting in his response/show cause that when the vehicle was moving on the P.W.D. Road, the Forest Guard deployed, complainant forced to stop the vehicle and threatened the driver carrying some stone boulder in the trolley attached therein. From the show cause and the evidence of the petitioner involving the forest offence case, there is no plea on the benefit of Rule-5 for the material not being transported within the district. Hence this Court is afraid of taking up any such issue after the appeal is already over. Reading the evidence from the side of prosecution, this Court finds not only the evidence remains consistent but the prosecution has been able to establish a clear case of involvement of the vehicle in the offence leaving no scope to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Mere shifting the responsibility on the driver cannot help him. However, from the whole reading of the evidence of D.Ws., this Court nowhere finds that the boulders were being transported within the district resultantly, thus there is attraction of the provision of Rules-4 & 12 of the OTT Rules. Mere shifting the responsibility on the driver cannot help him. However, from the whole reading of the evidence of D.Ws., this Court nowhere finds that the boulders were being transported within the district resultantly, thus there is attraction of the provision of Rules-4 & 12 of the OTT Rules. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, vide W.P.(C) No.7403/2016 granting relief to the petitioner on the premises that the seized item involved therein was being an intra-district transport has no application to the case at hand for simple reason of no such claim of owner in such report. 7. Considering the discussions involving both the impugned orders, findings therein and the observations herein, this Court finds, there is no infirmity in either of the impugned orders requiring any interference in the same in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.