Partly allowed

Divisional Forest Officer v. Venkatta Krishna Bhatt

Kerala HC1 Apr 2013CRP/519/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the District Judge's order and held that the authorization officer lacked power under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 to direct prosecution. However, the order confiscating timber was sustained as the respondent had no objection to it.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; direction to prosecute set aside; confiscation order sustained.

Divisional Forest Officer Vs Venkatta Krishna Bhatt — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

CRP.No. 519 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMA.8/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGODE DATED 22-02-2012

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶8

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KASARAGOD DIVISION, KASARAGOD POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶10

VENKATA KRISHNA BHATT, S/O. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT BARANYA OF PANAJE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, PANAJE POST, D.K.DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE-574 259.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

¶12

SMT.M.RAMANYA GAYATHRI

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRP.No. 519 of 2012 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶17

I COPY OF ORDER NO.KGOR.3/01 [KB-945/2011] DT. 03.01.2011 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/-

¶18

THOMAS P. JOSEPH,J

¶19

C.R.P. No.519 of 2012

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of April 2013

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this civil revision challenge is to the judgment

¶23

dated 22.02.2012 in CMA. No.8 of 2011 of the District Court, Kasaragod setting aside annexure 1 order dated 03.01.2011 in K.G.O.R. No.3/2001 (KB-945/2001) of the Divisional Forest Officer, Kannur ( for short, “the authorized officer”) .

¶24

Altogether, 18 pieces of rose wood timber were seized by the forest officials for which a case was registered as K.G.O.R. No.3/2001 of Kasaragod range. According to the department, 16 of those logs were collected from Kasaragod range of the reserve forest while 2 pieces were collected from other government forest. The authorized officer initiated proceeding for confiscation under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 ( “the Act” for short). That resulted in Annexure 1 order. That order was set aside by the learned District Judge, Kasargode in C.M.A. No.8 of

¶25

C.R.P. No.519 of 2012

¶26

¶27

¶28

Learned Special Government Pleader contends

¶29

that findings entered by the learned District Judge are not correct. It is also contended that even the respondent never had any claim over the 18 pieces of rose wood timber seized by the department.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent while asserting that respondent is not in any way connected with the seizure of rose wood logs contends that the authorized officer had no authority to direct prosecution of petitioner under provisions of the Act. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that even according to the forest department, 2 of the seized timber were (allegedly) collected from other government forest in which case in view of the decision in Moideen v. assistant Wild Life Warden [2010 (4) KLT 41] the authorized officer had no authority to order confiscation of those 2 peaces.

¶31

In response, learned special government pleader submits that the judgment in Moideen v.

¶32

C.R.P. No.519 of 2012

¶33

¶34

assistant Wild Life Warden is under challenge in the Supreme Court.

¶35

Having heard learned special government pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent, I am inclined to think it is not necessary to go in to the merit of the contentions parties have raised. For, respondent has no objection in the 18 pieces of rose wood timber being seized or confiscated by the authorities concerned. Respondent is not making any claim over it, as well. Grievance of respondent is only with respect to the direction the authorized officer has issued in Annexure 1 order to proceed against the respondent for offences under the Act.

¶36

On going through 61 (A) of the Act, it is not seen that the authorized officer is vested with any power to direct prosecution of any person concerned. The said provision only deals with confiscation of timber, charcoal, fire wood, or ivory which is the property of the government. Therefore, direction in Annexure 1 order to prosecute petitioner for offences punishable under the Act

¶37

C.R.P. No.519 of 2012 4

¶38

cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. In other aspects, having regard to the stand of the respondent as stated above, it was not necessary for learned district judge to interfere with the order of confiscation.

¶39

Resultantly this writ petition is allowed as under.

¶40

Judgment of learned District Judge, Kasaragode in C.M.A. No. 8/2011 is set aside.

¶41

In view of the contention raised by the respondent that he has no connection with any of the rose wood timber seized, there is

¶42

no reason to interfere with Annexure 1 order dated 03.01.2011 confiscating the rose wood timber.

¶43

But, the direction issued by the authorized officer in Annexure 1 order to prosecute the respondent for offences under the Kerala Forest Act is set aside

¶44

It is made clear that independent of the

¶45

C.R.P. No.519 of 2012

¶46

¶47

said direction, it is open to the department concerned, if otherwise entitled, to proceed against the respondent for any offence alleged to be committed by him .

¶48

It is also made clear that in no such prosecution, the order of confiscation above stated shall be relied on as a piece of evidence since the order of confiscation is being sustained on the plea of respondent that he has no interest in the timber seized and therefore, has no objection to its confiscation.

¶49

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶50

Divisional Forest Officer v. Venkatta Krishna Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Forest Officer v. Venkatta Krishna Bhatt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs v.K.Ramakrishnan

Shekaran Nair Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer,Kseb

Neelakantan Vs Sumithran

Anil Viswanath Vs Secretary,S.N.D.P.Sakham Yogam NO.46

Sadanandan Vs George

Vamana Prabhu Vs Sreekrishna Swami Devaswom