IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1692 of 2008()
1. AMMINI, W/O.MATHEW, ETUPANKIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE FOREST OFFICER, KOCHUKOICKAL BEAT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1692 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The petitioner is the owner of a lorry bearing Registration
No.KL-3E-9072.The said lorry was seized by the respondent on the ground
that it was carrying forest produce.
2. The petitioner has approached the Divisional Forest Officer,
Ranny, Pathanamthitta for interim custody of the vehicle. The request made
in the application was rejected by the second respondent by Ext.P5 order.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.18140 of 2008.
3. The learned Single Judge, relying on the observations made
by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Krishna (AIR 2000
SCW 2911), has refused to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner.
However, has directed the second respondent to complete the confiscation
proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the orders passed by this
Court.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the learned
Single judge, the petitioner is before us in this appeal.
W.A.No.1692/2008 -2-
5. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/petitioner would submit that the learned Single Judge was not
justified in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner by relying on the
observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
Krishna (AIR 2000 SCW 2911). According to the learned counsel, even in the
aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has observed that interim custody of the
vehicle can be given to the owner of the vehicle after taking appropriate bank
guarantee as security from the owner of the vehicle in exceptional cases.
6. We have gone through the mahazar that was prepared by the
respondents at the time of seizure of the vehicle. In that, the only allegation
against the petitioner is, that, he was carrying wood worth Rs.5,000/- and the
revenue loss, if any, would be in a sum of Rs.2,000/-.
7. In our opinion, this is an exceptional case. We say so for
the reason, even according to the respondents, the value of the wood that was
being carried in the lorry is valued at only Rs.5000/- and secondly, petitioner
has only one lorry and he says he has to eke out his living from using the
lorry. Therefore, request of the petitioner requires to be granted and if it is
granted, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Therefore,
without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case pleaded
by the parties to the lis, we dispose of the writ petition as under:
W.A.No.1692/2008 -3-
Order
i). The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranny, Pathanamthitta, the
second respondent is directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration
No.KL-3E-9072, after accepting bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) from the petitioner.
ii). The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the
authorities, whenever it is required.
iii). The petitioner shall maintain the vehicle in the same
condition as of now, till the matter is decided by the second respondent.
iv). The second respondent is directed to complete the
proceedings under the provisions of the Forest Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months
from today.
8. All the contentions of both the parties are left open.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(THOMAS P. JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS