High Court Kerala High Court

Babu vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 26 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Babu vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 26 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5438 of 2009(Y)


1. BABU, S/O.SATHYAVAN, HOUSE NO.X/05,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE RANGE OFFICER, KODANADU FOREST

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  -------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.5438 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the registered owner of a mini lorry bearing

Regn. No.KL-05/B-5796. Proceedings have been initiated against the

petitioner under Section 61A of the Forest Act on the allegation that

the vehicle was used for collecting timber from reserved forest. The

petitioner states that he has filed Ext.P2 before the 1st respondent

seeking custody of the vehicle pending finalization of the

proceedings. However, orders have not been passed. It is with that

grievance, the writ petition is filed.

2. The learned Government Pleader, who has instructions in

the matter, submits that the vehicle in question was taken into

custody on 07/01/2009, in view of the finding that the vehicle was

used for unauthorized transportation of timber from reserved forest.

However, even according to the learned Government Pleader,

proceedings are pending before the 1st respondent and are yet to be

finalized.

3. In view of this, I do not think that there is any reason for

WP(C) No.5438/2009
-2-

keeping the vehicle in custody by exposing it to sun and rain

causing damages, which will not be to the advantage to both

parties. In view of this, I feel it is only appropriate that the vehicle is

released to the petitioner by providing sufficient safeguards to take

care of the interest of the respondents.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions:-

(1) That the 1st respondent shall get the value of the vehicle

assessed by a competent officer, and if the petitioner furnishes Bank

Guarantee for the full value of the vehicle, the vehicle will be

released to the petitioner, subject to such other conditions as the 1st

respondent may deem fit.

(2) It is directed that the petitioner shall in addition to the above,

give an undertaking that he shall not alienate or encumber the

vehicle, and that he shall produce the same as and when called for.

5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

before the 1st respondent for compliance.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg