Quashed

Anil Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Dec 2020WP(C)/24143/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge quashed an order passed in forest confiscation proceedings because it was issued without a hearing notice required by a previous direction. The matter was remitted to the Authorized Officer for adjudication afresh.

What did the court decide?

The order in Confiscation Proceeding No. 26 of 2013-14 is quashed and remitted to the Authorized Officer to adjudicate afresh with a hearing by April 2021.

Anil Kumar Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha — Environment and Pollution | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 24143 of 2020

¶2

04.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶3

Heard Mr. Debendra Kumar Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.

¶4

Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 26.11.2020, the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada-opposite party No.3 has filed an affidavit on 03.12.2020 serving copy of thereof on learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada-opposite party No.3 to hear and conclude Confiscation Proceeding No.26 of 2013-14 (arising out of O.R. Case No.53 D of 2013-14), strictly in accordance with the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22202 of 2017, disposed of on 15.01.2018 (Annexure-8) and CONTC No.9 of 2019, disposed of on 13.02.2019 (Annexure-9), along with other prayers.

¶6

Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada-opposite party No.3 disposed of the Confiscation Proceeding No. 26 of 2013-14

¶7

¶8

on 05.02.2018 (Annexure-A/3 to the affidavit filed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada), without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further refers to the notices as at Annexure-B/3 series to the said affidavit, which disclose that those were issued to the petitioner prior to the order under Annexure-8 passed by this Court. It is his submission that after disposal of the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.22202 of 2017, no notice in the Confiscation Proceeding was ever issued to the petitioner to appear before the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest and defend his case. He, therefore prays for setting aside the said order under Annexure-A/3.

¶9

Mrs. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate although submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing to appear and defend his in the Confiscation Proceeding, but she failed to satisfy the Court, as to whether any notice was issued to the petitioner in the Confiscation Proceeding after 15.01.2018, i.e. on the date W.P.(C) No. 22202 of 2017 was disposed of.

¶10

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly the impugned order as well as notices annexed to the affidavit filed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada-opposite party No.3, it appears that no notice was even issued to the petitioner pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22202 of 2017. As such, the order passed under

¶11

¶12

Annexure-A/3 suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice and the same has not been passed in consonance with the direction of this Court.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned order passed in the Confiscation Proceeding No. 26 of 2013-14 (arising out of Offence Report No.53-D of 2013-14) is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Authorized Officer-cumAssistant Conservator of Forest, Cuttack Forest Division, Nuapada-opposite party No.3 to adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of April, 2021.

¶14

It is made clear that this has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner in the aforesaid Confiscation Proceeding.

¶15

Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶16

..………………………….

¶17

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶18

bct

Anil Kumar Bhuyan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Bhuyan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmidhar Padhiary Vs Dasarathi Padhiary

Akshaya Behera Vs Dhirendra Jata

Jitendra Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. Vs Collector and District Magistrate,Jajpur

Rajesh Agarwal Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Barik Vs Govt. of Odisha