Allowed

Kartik Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC5 May 2017WP(C)/2655/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an interim direction releasing a seized vehicle used to transport green firewood without a transit permit, notwithstanding Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, upon finding a prima facie case that no forest offence was committed.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction releasing the seized vehicle (Ape Auto bearing registration No. OD-12-0353) and disposing of the writ petition with directions to release.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the seizure and detention of his vehic le, i.e., Ape Auto bearing registration No.OD-12-0353 in connection with O.R. No.157 of 2016-1 7 to be illegal, unjust and improper, with a prayer to quash the seizure list and consequentia l proceedings and direct the opposite parties to release the vehicle in his favour.

It appears that the aforesaid vehicle was seized in connection with the aforesaid case as the same was used in transportation of green firewood without any required transit permit. During course of hearing of this writ petition on the question of admission, the learn ed counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the prayer made in this w rit petition, but seeks for a direction to release the vehicle interimly in favour of the peti tioner as prima-facie no offence appears to have been committed against any forest produce usi ng the vehicle of the petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State though not filed the counter affi davit, but submits that whether the produce seized in this case is forest produce or not can b e ascertained at the time of trial, more so when the enquiry in this case is in progress. In s uch premises, the prayer made in this writ petition is devoid of merit. He further submits tha t since Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 prohibits interim release of the vehicle sei zed in connection with a forest offence against a forest produce in a confiscation proceeding, the vehicle seized in this case should not be released, more so the materials on record discl ose the fact that the aforesaid vehicle was used in transportation of green firewood without a ny transit permit.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case that no forest offence has been committed using the aforesaid vehicle against the forest produce and nothing is there indicating the fact that it is covered under the definition of forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and also exemption Rule 5(1)(i) of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, the petitioners prayer for interim releas e of the vehicle appears to have merit. Therefore, notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, the vehicle in question of the petitioner be rel eased interimly in favour of the petitioner on such terms and conditions as the opposite parti es may deem fit and proper.

However, it is made clear that the conditions to be imposed should not be so harsh, to overreach this order and must be commensurate to ensure production of the vehicle in good run ning condition and also may put the condition not to use the same in any forest offence.

Kartik Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Pradhan v. State of Odisha

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

Ramaji Bisi Vs State

Bhagaban Das Vs State

Banchanidhi Nanda Vs State

Nirua@Nirmal Das Vs State of Orissa

Benudhar Mallik Vs State of Orissa

Bipin Ku.Sahoo@Bapi Vs State of Orissa