Allowed

Shalini Raina v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Jan 2022WP227/11/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition quashing remarks in a Sessions Judge's order that adverseacted against the petitioner, directing the State to take action against her for incorrectly following the due process of law while forfeiting a vehicle without holding an appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Remarks contained at paragraph Nos. 26 to 28 of the impugned order dated 18.11.2021 striking the petitioner and directing the State to take action against her were stricken down as totally un-called f

Shalini Raina Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP (227) No. 11 of 2022

¶5

Shalini Raina W/o Dr. Anand Chhabra, aged about 48 years, presently posted as Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Division Durg, District Durg, CG

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

¶9

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, CG

¶10

Syed Akbar Ali S/o Late Shri Mahmood Ali, aged 49 years, R/o Village Mohla, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon, CG

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For petitioner : Shri Matin Siddiqui and Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates For Respondents No. 1 & 2/State :Shri Gurudev I. Sharan GA

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶14

07/01/2022

¶15

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 128/2021 in particular in respect of the specific remarks made against the petitioner that she has passed the order of forefeiture of vehicle bearing registration No. CG-24-E-1110 in

¶16

¶17

Forest Offence Case No. 07/2021 without following the due process of law, and further directing the Secretary, Department of Forest, to take necessary action against her, and then inform the Court about the action so taken by him. The remarks sought to be quashed are contained in paragraph Nos. 27 to 28 of the order under challenge.

¶18

The facts of the case in brief are that on 19.10.2019 during patrolling by the Forest employees of Lohara Range of Balod Forest Division, a Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No. CG-24-E-1110 was found carrying 41 pieces i.e. 0.330 cubic meters of teak wood which were cut down and transported illegally from the Reserve Forest Area Compartment No. 191RF. In pursuance thereof, a Forest Offence was registered by the officials of the Forest Department as Forest Report (POR) No. 07/2021 on the same day under Sections 26 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act and a copy of the same was forwarded to Sub Divisional Officer, Dalli-Rajhara by the Forest Range Officer vide letter dated 21.10.2019. On 22.10.2019 the said letter regarding the Forest Offence was also forwarded to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundi Lohara, District Balod by the authorised officer. On completion of investigation, letter dated 22.07.2020 was brought to the notice of Sub Divisional Officer, Dalli Rajhara by the Forest Officer of Lohara along with the detailed investigation report. After publication of notice, a communication was made to Ikramul Ali, Syed Abdul Faheem and Smt. Anita Mishra – the owners and possessors of the offending vehicle who are in fact

¶19

¶20

the affected parties of the said offence and they were asked to keep themselves present in the office of Authorised Officer and Joint Divisional Forest Officer, Dalli Rajhara, with their written statements. On 23.07.2020 the notices were also issued to the vehicle driver as also the witnesses for the purpose of recording their statements with respect to the seizure proceedings.

¶21

The facts relevant for decision of this Writ Petition further go that on 14.08.2020 the Authorised Officer & Joint Divisional Forest Officer acting upon the statements of the witnesses passed an order for confiscation of the vehicle and forfeiture of the forest produce so recovered from the offending vehicle. Against the order dated 14.08.2020 an appeal was filed by the private respondent herein namely Syed Akbar Ali before the First Appellate Authority – Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.02.2021. Private respondent then preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Durg against the order dated 22.02.2021, which by the order impugned dated 18.11.2021 has been allowed. While passing the order impugned learned Revisional Court has made certain remarks, particularly the ones contained at paragraph Nos. 26 to 28 to the effect that while passing the order of forfeiture of vehicle the petitioner has not followed the due process of law, and then also directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest to take necessary action against her and transmit the information to it as to the action so taken. It is these remarks

¶22

¶23

which made the petitioner approach this Court by way of the instant petition.

¶24

Heard counsel for the petitioner as also for the State. However, considering the nature of the issue involved in the case in hand, the notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

¶25

From the documents on record it is apparent that Forest Offence No. 07/2021 was registered by the Forest Range Officer Doundi Lohara District Balod against the driver of the vehicle laden with teak wood bearing registration No. CG-24E1110 under Sections 26 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, who disclosed his name to be Devlal Yadav. On being asked by the Forest Range Officer, the driver also disclosed that he was not in possession of the documents pertaining to the said teak wood, and that he was taking the same to Sirpur from village Nalpani. Documents on record further show that after seizure being made, the vehicle and the teak woods were brought to Lohara Depot. The documents on record also point out that after investigation and going through the statements of the witnesses the authorised officer/ Joint Divisional Forest Officer, Dallirajhara ordered for confiscation of the vehicle involved in the Forest Offence followed by recovery of the teak wood laden thereon. On an appeal being preferred, the appellate authority i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, vide order 22.02.2021 maintained the order of confiscation. The order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle

¶26

¶27

was called in question by the respondent No.3 herein by way of Criminal Revision No. 128/2021. Though the Forest Offence was committed in District Balod, learned Sessions Judge Durg, while allowing the said revision made certain remarks against the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle such as she in the capacity of the appellate Authority did not afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the revisioner; did not follow the mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act; did not pay any heed to the fact that the Authroised Officer did not give any opportunity to the vehicle owner of making a representation nor did he give intimation to the Judicial Magistrate etc. Learned Sessions Judge, by the order impugned also directed for despatching a copy thereof to the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Chhattisgarh and asking him to take appropriate action against the Appellate Authority ( Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle) and then inform the Court about the action so taken.

¶28

The Apex Court While dealing with the identical issue in the matter of State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and others reported in (2003) 8 SCC 361 has held that Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing. It has been further held that one is entitled to have and preserve, one's reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of

¶29

¶30

personal reputation adversely affecting him, must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard of principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. Similar view is taken in the matter of Krishna Prasad Verma (D) thr. Lrs v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 640 where it has been held as under:

¶31

“We would, however, like to make it clear that we are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the concerned judicial officer. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they form part of the service record these can be taken into consideration to deny selection grade, promotion etc., and in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. We again reiterate that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary

¶32

¶33

proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect. “

¶34

Having thus analysed the factual and legal aspect of the matter this Court finds that the remarks made by learned Sessions Judge against the petitioner in the order impugned dated 18.11.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 128/2021, particularly the ones contained in paragraph Nos. 26 to 28 are totally un-called for and therefore liable to be struck down. Order accordingly.

¶35

8. Petition thus stands allowed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶38

Jyotishi

Shalini Raina v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Raina v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

2 Dudes Mens Wear, Proprietor Vs Smt. Sunita Goyal

Jeevan Lal Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yashoda Bai Sahu Vs Punarad Sahu

Jaswant Singh Kailashiya Vs Smt. Kamla Kailashiya

Director - Nssl Private Limited, Vs Sushil Kumar Sharma