Remanded

The Authorised Officer v. M.Gopalan

Kerala HC11 Jul 2016CRP/202/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court, in a civil revision, remitted a matter to the District Court for fresh consideration regarding the confiscation of a vehicle for transporting Anjili timber. The Court set aside the lower court's acquittal due to the petitioners' failure to cite a notification withdrawing the transport exemption before the appeal was decided, imposing costs on the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside on condition that the petitioners pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent as cost; the matter remitted to the District Court for fresh consideration.

The Authorised Officer Vs M.Gopalan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2016/20TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 202 of 2013

¶6

CMA.45/2006 OF DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY DATED 11-10-2012

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/ DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR.

¶9

2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM, P.O.KANNAVAM.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶12

M.GOPALAN, S/O. BAPPU, MANHAKKARA HOUSE, P.O. NEDUMPOYIL, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670650.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS

¶14

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

CRP.No. 202 of 2013

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KN.6607/2005 DATED 16/2/2006 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOERST OFFICER KANNUR.

¶20

IA.1729/2013

¶21

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FORM-I REPORT IN OR.NO.3/2005 OF THE KANNAVOM FORST RANGE.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. HARILAL, J.

C.R.P. No. 202 of 2013-C

¶29

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2016

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners herein are the respondents 1 and 2 before the court below and the respondent herein is the appellant therein. The respondent herein had preferred C.M.A. No.45/2006 before the court below against the order of confiscation passed by the 1^st petitioner herein under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

¶32

The case against the respondent is that he had transported 4 logs of Anjili timber in a Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.KL13F 1725 on 5/8/2005 at 5 a.m. and the same was seized and confiscated with the vehicle by the Authorised Officer/1^st petitioner. The Authorised Officer, under Sec.61A of the Kerala

¶33

C.R.P. No. 202 of 2013 -: 2 :-

¶34

Forest Act, got jurisdiction and power to order confiscation of a vehicle only in a case where a forest offence is believed to have committed in respect of the property of the Government. Thus, only if a forest offence has been committed, the Authorised Officer will get jurisdiction to pass an order of confiscation of the vehicle under Sec.61A(2) of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶35

It is the case of the respondent that no permission or pass was required for transporting Anjili trees, as it is exempted under the proviso to Rule IV(4) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules. Therefore, no forest offence was committed by the respondent, so as to confiscate his vehicle. The court below accepted the arguments advanced by the respondent and allowed the appeal. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid reasonings; whereby the court below allowed the appeal, are impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶37

C.R.P. No. 202 of 2013

¶38

-: 3 :-

¶39

It is not disputed that the power of confiscation under Sec.61A of the Kerala Forest Act is available only when the Authorised Officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of the property belonging to the Government of Kerala. According to the respondent, as per the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, prevailing at the relevant point of time, Anjili tree was exempted, as per the Rule IV(4) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975.

¶40

In this Civil Revision Petition, it is the case of the petitioners that, by subsequent Notification dated 19/5/1993, cutting, removal and transportation of Anjili tree was subsequently withdrawn. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioners have produced a copy of the Government Notification dated 19/5/1993.

¶41

Going by the said Notification, it is seen that the earlier Notification granting exemption for cutting and removal of Anjili tree was withdrawn by Notification dated 19/5/1993. In the instant case, the

¶42

C.R.P. No. 202 of 2013 -: 4 :-

¶43

date of occurrence was on 5/8/2005. It shows that, in the instant case, the petitioners have allegedly committed the offence, at the time when the subsequent Notifications dated 15/3/1993 and 19/5/1993 were in force. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration by the court below itself.

¶44

But, going by the grounds raised in this Civil Revision Petition, it is seen that the petitioners failed to produce the relevant Notification, at the time when the appeal was taken up for hearing and the appeal happened to be allowed, without noticing the relevant Notification. It follows that it was so happened due to the negligence or laches on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are liable to compensate the respondent for the expenses to contest this Civil Revision Petition.

¶45

In the above view of the matter, the impugned judgment will stand set aside on condition that the petitioners shall pay `5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the respondent as cost, within a period of two

¶46

C.R.P. No. 202 of 2013

¶47

-: 5 :-

¶48

months from today and the matter is remitted back to the District Court, Thalassery, for fresh consideration, in accordance with law, on compliance of the said condition. Needless to say, in the event of failure, the impugned judgment will stand in force.

¶49

This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶52

Nan/

¶53

//true copy//

¶54

P.S. to Judge

The Authorised Officer v. M.Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Authorised Officer v. M.Gopalan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saifunnisa Vs Abdul Muizee

T.T.Philip @ Monichan Vs Thomas John

Bella Sathyanarayana Vs P.S.Praveen Kumar

Rajan Vs Laly

M.K.Anandavally Vs K.T.Soman

V.a.Krishnan Vs M.v.Sabu