The High Court of Orissa dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash forest confiscation proceedings. The Court held that maintainability must be addressed by the Authorized Officer and released the vehicle only after contested proceedings concluded.
Prayer to quash confiscation and release vehicle dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31262 of 2020
Santosh Kumar Parida
…. Petitioner Mr. R.K.Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Dillip Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
05.12.2022
“11. The power of confiscation is a very important power and it has to be used by the Authorised Officer, not silting as a forest official but as an independent authority. Subsection (2) of Section 56 of the Act imposes a duty on the forest officials that while seizing any property under this
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
section, they shall place on all such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized. In the case in hand, neither from the order of the Authorised Officer nor from that of the learned District Judge we find that any such mark was placed. In fact, according to the prosecution, the bamboos were dumped in front of the P.W.D. Inspection Bungalow. Therefore, there is nothing to link that the bamboos alleged to have been seized were the bamboos actually carried by the truck. As such, confiscation of the truck is illegal. That apart, as the bamboos were not marked, as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act, it cannot be held that those were transported in violation of the rules in question.”
The case law cited by learned counsel for the Petitioner has no application to the case at hand. Further, the question with regard to maintainability of the proceeding can be adjudicated by the Authorized Officer himself.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the power of confiscation under the Forest Act should be quashed due to lack of marking on seized property.
Whether the maintainability of confiscation proceedings can be adjudicated by the Authorized Officer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa Vs. P.P. Agrawala and othersDistinguished¶16
State of Orissa Vs. P.P.Agrawala and others, 1997 (II) OLR 355
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar Parida
State of Odisha
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
