Dismissed

Rama Chandra Sahoo v. A.O. Cum Asst. Conservator of Forest, Athagarh,Cuttack

Orissa HC15 Mar 2024WA/2738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding vehicle confiscation under the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, the Court held that the appellant's lack of education or knowledge of the law does not vitiate the confiscation order. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 24 days was condoned; the intra-court appeal was dismissed; the order of confiscation was upheld.

Rama Chandra Sahoo Vs A.O. Cum Asst. Conservator of… — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 2738 of 2023

¶3

Rama Chandra Sahoo

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Mr. Ashok Sahoo, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Authorized-cum-Assistant Conservator …. Respondent of Forest, Athagarh, Cuttack

¶8

Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶11

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 15.03.2024

I.A. No.8008 of 2023

¶16

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶17

This application has been filed by the applicant/appellant seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring the present intra-Court appeal.

¶18

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the delay of 24 days in preferring the present writ appeal is hereby condoned.

¶20

W.A. No.2738 of 2023

¶21

Heard Mr. Ashok Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondent.

¶22

There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is the owner-cum-driver of a truck bearing Registration No.OAC-4643

¶23

Page 1 of 3

¶24

which was found carrying Kendu leaves, illegally which led to the seizure of the said vehicle and 395 bundles of Kendu leaves by the Forest Officials on 02.02.1992. The vehicle became thus the subject matter of the confiscation in accordance with the provision under Section 56 (2-a) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Sub-Section (2-a) of Section 56 of the Act reads thus:-

¶25

“When an authorized officer seizes any forest produce under Sub-section (1) or where any such forest produce is produced before him under Sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he shall order confiscation of the forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle used in committing such offence.”

¶26

Sub-Section (2-b) of Section 56 of the Act prescribes the procedure for confiscating a property made under sub-section (2-a) of the Act.

¶27

From materials on records, there does not appear to be any violation of the requirements under sub-section (2-b) of Section 56 of the Act. The vehicle was ordered to be confiscated by the confiscating authority. The appellant’s appeal before the learned District Judge, Cuttack came to be dismissed by an order dated 30.01.2019 passed in FAO No.123 of 2007.

¶28

The appellant challenged the order of the learned District Judge before this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2009 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 04.09.2023. The said order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2009 is under challenge in the present intra-Court appeal.

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

Mr. Ashok Sahoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the vehicle belonged to the appellant who was the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle. He also does not dispute the fact that the vehicle was seized by the Forest Officials loaded with 395 bundles of Kendu leaves in view of violation of the statutory provision. He, however, submits that the appellant is not even a matriculate and he was not knowing the consequences of carrying Kendu leaves in his vehicle. In the said background, he submits that the order of confiscation of the vehicle was bad which aspect has not been duly gone into by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

After having gone through the statutory provisions, materials available on record and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, we do not find any merit in the contention that because the appellant was unaware of the statutory provisions, the order of confiscation can be said to be bad. In view of the admitted facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.

¶32

We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶34

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶35

Chief Justice

¶36

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶37

S. Behera

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Page 3 of 3

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Mar-2024 11:02:08

Rama Chandra Sahoo v. A.O. Cum Asst. Conservator of Forest, Athagarh,Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Chandra Sahoo v. A.O. Cum Asst. Conservator of Forest, Athagarh,Cuttack

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

Shyam Vs Commissioner

Sanjit Kumar Turuk Vs Secy. Ministry of Environment, New Delhi

Kishor Kishan Vs Dr. Gavali Parag Harshad, I.A.S.

Kamal Lochan Talab Vs State of Odisha

Madhaba Chandra Sahoo Vs Manas Ranjan Bhoi,Tahasildar,Odagaon

Shilalipi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha