IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35655 of 2009(O)
1. E.M.JOYKUTTY, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, DIVISIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35655 of 2009 - O
---------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records relating to Ext.P1.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ
order or direction to stay all proceedings under Ext.P6
notice till the disposal of Ext.P1 appeal.”
2. Petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.No.82 of 2009 on
the file of the 2nd Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The
appeal is preferred under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act,
against an order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Malayattoor Division, Kodanad, confiscating a motor vehicle
owned by the appellant alleging that it was involved in a forest
offence. Previously, petitioner, after registration of the forest
offence involving the vehicle, had got interim custody of that
vehicle, after seizure by the forest officials, by orders of the
Magistrate before whom the criminal case was pending. The
release of the vehicle on interim custody was challenged by the
respondent by filing a writ petition, W.P.(C).No.22748 of 2008
W.P.(C).No.35655 of 2009 – O
2
before this Court. Order passed by the learned Magistrate
allowing interim custody of the vehicle was quashed by judgment
dated 28.7.2009 rendered in the above writ petition. A petition
filed by the petitioner seeking review of that judgment was also
later dismissed. Meanwhile, pursuant to proceedings taken the
Divisional Forest Officer, after hearing the petitioner/appellant,
passed an order confiscating the vehicle. That order is now being
challenged in C.M.A.No.82 of 2009 before the 2nd Additional
District Court, Ernakulam. In that C.M.Appeal,
petitioner/appellant had moved an application for staying the
operation of the confiscation order. Learned District Judge has
ordered notice on that application. Petitioner has therefore
approached this Court seeking the aforementioned relief invoking
the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Notice given, learned Special Government Pleader
(Forests) has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I heard the
counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government
Pleader (Forests).
W.P.(C).No.35655 of 2009 – O
3
4. Petitioner is enjoying possession of the vehicle on the
basis of the interim custody granted by the Magistrate which had
been quashed by orders by judgment rendered by this Court,
submits the learned Special Government Pleader. Further more
as no orders have been passed by the learned District Judge on
the petition filed for staying the operation of the confiscation
order impugned in the appeal and so much so, the visitorial
jurisdiction of this Court may not be invoked for granting the
relief canvassed in the writ petition, is the submission of the
learned Special Government Pleader (Forests).
5. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts
and circumstances presented, I find at this stage, the relief
canvassed for staying the operation of Ext.P6 notice given by the
authorized officer, pending appeal preferred by the petitioner,
cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner has to approach the District Court for an expeditious
disposal of the application filed by him for staying the operation
of the confiscation order. It is submitted that the petition stands
posted for return of notice on 23.12.2009. Respondent is
W.P.(C).No.35655 of 2009 – O
4
directed to enter appearance in the appeal and file counter, if
any, to that application before 22.12.2009. The learned District
Judge is directed to hear and dispose of Ext.P2 application
expeditiously, preferably on 23.12.2009 itself. In case the
application, for any reason, could not be heard and disposed of
on 23.12.2009, there will be a direction to dispose that
application within two weeks from the above date.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-