IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24096 of 2009(F)
1. P.J.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
2. THOMAS, S/O. VELLANI KUNCHAKKAN,
Vs
1. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :22/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.24096 of 2009 – F
—————————————-
Dated 22nd September, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri. K.G.Balasubramanian, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.T.H.Hanilkumar, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The first petitioner is the proprietor of a saw mill. The
second petitioner is the person entrusted with the right to run the
said saw mill under an agreement entered into between the
petitioners. On 1.7.2009, the first respondent Forest Range Officer
came to the saw mill of the petitioners and took into custody two
electric motors and two belt saws. The petitioners’ grievance is that
though they had submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations before
the second respondent requesting for release of the electric motors
and belt saws seized from their premises, till date, orders have not
been passed thereon. The petitioners contend that the respondents
have no right under section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 to
seize the electric motors and belt saws and therefore, the action of
the respondents in removing the tools of their trade is arbitrary and
illegal. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature
W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 2
of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the electric
motors and belt saws removed from their saw mill.
3. A statement has been filed by the first respondent Forest
Range Officer wherein it is stated that forest trees illegally cut and
removed from a teak plantation were sawn in the petitioners’ saw
mill with prior arrangement and therefore, the petitioners are liable
to be proceeded against. It is stated that the persons who cut and
removed timber which is a forest produce have stated that the
timber cut and removed by them was sawn in the saw mill run by
the petitioners. The first respondent has also stated that after the
electric motors and belt saws were seized from the petitioners’ saw
mill, they were produced before the Divisional Forest Officer and
that if the tools seized from the petitioners are released before the
authorized officer completes the proceedings initiated by him,
substantial prejudice will be caused to the Department.
4. Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers any forest
officer or police officer, who has reason to believe that a forest
offence has been committed, to seize any timber or other forest
produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and
cattle used in committing any such offence. Section 61 A (2) of the
Kerala Forest Act stipulates that where a forest offence has been
W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 3
committed in respect of timber which is the property of the
Government, the timber in respect of which the offence has been
committed and the tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle
used in committing such offence are liable to be confiscated. The
contention of the petitioners is that the forest offence, if at all any
was committed, was complete when the forest produce was cut and
removed and that even if it is assumed that such forest produce was
sawn in their saw mill, it cannot be stated that their saw mill was
used to commit the forest offence. In my opinion, this is primarily a
matter which the second respondent should decide at least in the
first instance. Section 61 of the Kerala Forest Act empowers a
Forest Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of
Forests holding the charge of a Forest Division to direct immediate
release of any property seized under section 52 and to withdraw any
charge made in respect of such property. The Divisional Forest
Officer, Chalakudy is an officer above the rank of an Assistant
Conservator of Forests and holding the charge of a Forest Division.
Therefore, the second respondent is competent to order release of
the tools seized from the petitioners’ saw mill. In such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the second respondent
W.P.(C) No.24096/2009 4
should consider the request made by the petitioners in Exts.P1 and
P2 and take a decision thereon expeditiously.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to
the second respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P2 applications filed
by the petitioners and pass orders thereon after affording them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard. Final orders in the matter
shall be passed within one month from the date on which the
petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the
second respondent. It will be open to the petitioners to supplement
Exts.P1 and P2 representations by filing another representation
along with a certified copy of this judgment.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa