Petitioner challenged confiscation of vehicle and timber under the Odisha Forest Act, arguing articles were not forest produce. High Court dismissed the writ, holding timber is forest produce under Section 2(g) and transport required a TT Permit, which petitioner admitted was absent.
No order as to cost.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 14:01:45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024
(An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India)
Manaranjan Mohanta
…… Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha and others .…… Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner : Mr. Asit Kumar Otta, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM : MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
-----------------------------------------------Heard and disposed of on 19.06.2024 ----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 10th November, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned District Judge, Mayurbhanj in FAO No.19 of 2023 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby dismissing the appeal, learned District Judge confirmed the order dated 17th July, 2023 (Annexure-2) passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024 Page 1 of 5
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 14:01:45
A.C.F, Baripada Forest Division, Baripada in OR Case No.29R of 2022-23.
3. Mr. Otta, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the ill-fated day, i.e., on 2nd August, 2022 while the Petitioner was transporting some sized timber along with firewood in his Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing Registration No.OD-11H-4349, it was seized by the forest officials on the road from Jhinkria to Rasgovindpur at about 3.10 P.M. The Petitioner being the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle could not produce necessary papers for transportation of the timer sizes. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and confiscation proceeding was initiated under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Petitioner participated in the proceeding. But, unfortunately, the Authorized Officer-cumA.C.F, Baripada Forest Division, Baripada without considering the fact that the articles seized were not forest produce and no TT Permit is necessary for transportation of the same, confiscated the vehicle along with seized articles vide order dated 17th July, 2023 under Annexure-2. Assailing the same, the Petitioner preferred appeal under Section 56 (2-e) of the Act in FAO No.19 of 2023. Learned District Judge without considering the matter in its proper perspective, dismissed the appeal vide judgment under Annexure-1. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
4. It is his submission that the Petitioner is an unemployed youth and has purchased the confiscated vehicle by obtaining
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024 Page 2 of 5
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 14:01:45
loan from private financer. On request of the saw mill owner, he was transporting 7 pieces of jackfruit sawn sizes over 1.02 cft, 21 pieces of Sirish sawn sizes over 5.214 cft, 146 pieces of Charla sawn sizes over 16.647 cft together with cut firewood weighing about 2 quintals. Since the articles were not being transported from the reserve forest area, no TT Permit is necessary for the same. Although the aforesaid grounds were raised before the Authorized Officer as well as before learned District Judge, but without considering the same, the impugned judgments under Annexures-1 and 2 have been passed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
5. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the Petitioner has admitted to have committed forest offence, which is apparent from the observation made by learned District Judge at Paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment under Annexure-1. He further drew attention to the observation made by the Authorized Officer in his judgment under Annexure-2 and submits that during cross-examination, the Petitioner has submitted that he is a farmer and he often engage his vehicle with Opera Party on hire basis as he is the authorized owner of the vehicle. It is further stated by the Petitioner that one Sri Kar Murmu of his village requested him to transport seized timber in his vehicle and at the time of detection Sri Murmu was not at the spot. He further stated in the cross-examination that there was no papers available with him in support of the timbers and its transportation. Said Sri Murmu is the owner of an unlicensed
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024 Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 14:01:45
saw mill, who had not supplied any papers to him. He further submits that admission is the best piece of evidence. Having admitted that he has committed a forest offence and he had no document in support of his contention that the seized articles were not forest produce and no TT Permit is necessary for transportation of the same, the Authorized Officer as well learned District Judge have committed to error in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.
5.1 It is further submitted that Section 2(g) of the Act defines forest produce, which includes timber. Thus, in view of the Rule 4 of Odisha Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for brevity ‘the Rules’), the Petitioner is required to hold a TT Permit while transporting the timber and other forest produces. The Petitioner has admitted to have not possessed the same while transporting the timber. As such, the writ petition merits no consideration and may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record including the provisions of law cited by learned counsel.
7. Section 2(g) of the Act defines ‘forest produce’, which includes ‘timber’. Further Rule 4 of the Rules provides that in order to fell and transport timber and other forest produces, TT Permit is necessary from the competent authority. In the instant case, the Petitioner admitted to have transported timber without any TT Permit. Admittedly, the timber was being transported from an unlicensed saw mill. Thus, the Petitioner should have
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024 Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2024 14:01:45
obtained a TT Permit before transportation of the timbers. It is further observed that at Paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment under Annexure-1 passed by learned District Judge, the Petitioner has admitted to have committed a forest offence. Thus, the contention of Mr. Otta, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the articles were not the forest produce, is not sustainable. Transportation of the same without a TT Permit is illegal and punishable. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity committed either by the Authorized Officer-cum-A.C.F, Baripada Forest Division, Baripada or by learned District Judge, Baripada while adjudicating the matter.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 19th June, 2024/Madhusmita
W.P.(C) No. 10503 OF 2024 Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders of confiscation under the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 were legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioner's admission of transporting timber without a TT permit validates the confiscation.
Whether the distinction between forest produce and non-forest produce was correctly applied by the lower courts.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Manaranjan Mohanta
State of Odisha
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
