The Court dismissed a writ petition reviewing an order confiscating a vehicle under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. After noting that over four years elapsed since the lower court's order, without patent illegality, the Court held it declined to entertain the petition.
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.
W.P.(C) No.3125 of 2017
Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in F.A.O. No.11 of 2015 filed under Section 56(2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’).
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate assailing the impugned order submits that knowledge of the owner is always not required for confiscation of the vehicle in question under Section 56 of the Act. It is his submission that except a bald statement of the owner of the vehicle, there is nothing on record to show that the owner of the vehicle had, in fact, no knowledge about the involvement of the vehicle in forest offence. He further submits that now a days the forest offences are rampant and unless it is handled with strong measures by confiscating the vehicle, the same cannot be curbed. Learned District Judge while considering the matter resorted to hyper technicality in considering the case of the opposite party. He also relied upon a decision in case of Sanjeev Mishra @ Sanjib Mishra-v- State of Orissa ; reported in 2006 (Supp-II) OLR-346 and submits that even absence of knowledge on the part of the owner by itself cannot get him out of the consequences flowing from the provisions contained in Section 56(2)(e) of the Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
2
Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-petitioners and the case law cited, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order was passed on 04.08.2016. Although the writ petition has been filed in time, but in the meantime more than four years have elapsed. It further appears that the impugned order has been passed taking into consideration the materials available on record and the scope and ambit of Section 56(2) of the Act.
In that view of the matter, when there is no patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, more particularly, when in the meantime more than four years have already elapsed from the date of passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
jm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the confiscation order under Section 56(2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 should be entertained after more than four years have elapsed since the order was pass
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjeev Mishra @ Sanjib Mishra-v- State of OrissaReferred¶5
Sanjeev Mishra @ Sanjib Mishra-v- State of Orissa reported in 2006 (Supp-II) OLR-346
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Orissa (through Chief Secretary to Government and Revenue Secretary)
Proprietor of Vehicle involved in forest offence
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
