The Court allowed the Civil Revision dismissing the challenge to the confiscation of a vehicle. It held that notices requiring the vehicle owner to show cause were validly served prior to the order, negating the claim of procedural violation.
Civil Revision No. 74 of 2011 dismissed; challenge to the confiscation order rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933
CRP.No. 74 of 2011() -----------------------------CMA.NO. 69/2009 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------MATHEW SCARIYA, S/O.SCARIYA, AGED 22 YEARS, UPPUKUZHY PUTHEN VEEDU, CHALIYAKKARA, EDAMON VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SMT.S.GIFFARA
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001.
2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PUNALUR - 691305.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.SAJEEV
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
C.R.P.No.74 of 2011
Dated this 14th day of July, 2011
ORDER
This civil revision is in challenge of judgment dated 22.10.2010 of the Court of learned Third Additional District Judge, Kollam in C.M.A.No.69 of 2009 confirming the order of confiscation passed by the authorised officer, DFO, Punalur under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act”). The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized by the forest officials for its alleged involvement in the incident in O.R.No.5 of 2008 of Pathanapuram range. The authorised officer initiated proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle. That ultimately resulted in the order of confiscation which learned Third Additional District Judge confirmed by the impugned judgment.
C.R.P.No.74 of 2011
-: 2 :-
confiscation and accordingly the file is produced before me today. I have perused the file.
Resultantly this civil revision fails. It is dismissed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-service of notice under Sec.61B of the Act vitiates the confiscation order when warnings were earlier issued.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MATHEW SCARIYA
STATE OF KERALA
THOMAS P JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
