The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17276 of 2017 Nityananda Panda …. Petitioner Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Shantanu Das, Addl. Standing Counsel
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 20.01.2025 Order No. 04. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 20th February, 2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Kendrapara under Section 13(4) of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (“Saw Mills Act”, for short) in FAO No.72 of 2015 (arising out of order dated 07th August, 2015 passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Cuttack in O.R. Case No.17K of 2007-08). 3. An order of confiscation was passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Cuttack in pursuance of Judgement dated 15.12.2012 rendered in 2(b) CC No.17 of 2008 (Trial No.594 of 2012) by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kendrapara. Being dissatisfied by said Order of confiscation passed by the Licensing Officer, an appeal under Section 13(4) of the Saw Mills Act was filed, which was registered as FAO No.72 of 2015. Said FAO has been disposed Page 1 of 4 of vide judgment dated 20th February, 2017 by the learned District Judge, Kendrapara with the following observation:- xxxx xxxx “xxxx Before proceeding to examine the legality of the 4. impugned order, this court considers it absolutely necessary to notice the provision enumerated U/s.13 (3) and 13 (4) of the Act, which are reproduced as under. xxxx “Sec.13(3)” any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the State Government in this behalf by Notification, may, within thirty days from the date of order of confiscation by the Licensing Officer under Sub-section (1) either suo motu or on application, call for an examine the records of that order and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and pass such orders as he may, think fit. Provided that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. “Sec.13(4)” Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (3) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized and the District Judge shall, after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit and the order of the District Judge so passed shall be final” On bare reading of above provision makes it apparently clear that after passing of confiscation order by licensing authority, the appropriate recourse for the aggrieved person is to approach the Conservator of Forest empowered by the State Government in this behalf within thirty days of the order of confiscation by licensing Officer and any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-Sec.3 by the Conservator of Forests may within 30 days from the date of communication of such order to him may appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property Page 2 of 4 has been seized. In this case, the appellant has admittedly approached the court of District Judge by passing the forum as laid down U/S 13 (3) of the Act and there is no provision under the Act to approach directly to the court of District Judge against the order of licensing authority. Law is fairly well settled that if a procedure has been prescribed by law to be done in a particular way, the same has to be followed and unless the appellant in this case redresses his grievance before the Conservator of Forest U/S 13 (3) of the Act, no appeal U/S 13 (4) is maintainable. It is no doubt true that this appeal has been admitted in this Court but the appellant has clearly given nomenclature of this appeal U/S 13 (4) of the Act and the order of Conservator of Forest may be challengeable U/S 13 (4) of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is having not challenged the legality of the impugned order before the appropriate forum, the appeal before this court is found not maintainable, but it is needless to mention here that the appellant is not remediless to agitate his claim of legal sustainability of impugned order before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. This impugned order not the court, however, challengeable before this forum. Hence it is ordered.” finds The learned District Judge has observed that the appeal under Section 13(4) of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 is not maintainable without exhausting the remedy available under Section 13(3). 4. Mr. Saswat Kumar Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the confiscation proceeding being of the year 2015 pursuant to judgment dated 15th December, 2012 passed in 2(b) CC No.17 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kendrapara, at this distance of time in exercise of writ Page 3 of 4 jurisdiction this Court may show indulgence in the said order and decide the matter on merits. 5. Mr. Shantanu Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties vehemently opposed such a stance of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that non- exhaustion of alternative remedy would not render the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Considered the submission by the learned counsel for the respective parties. As observed by the learned District Judge, Kendrapara, there is alternative remedy available under the statute, interest of justice shall be best served, if the petitioner is granted liberty to avail remedy under Section 13(3) of the Odisha Saw Mills and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991. In order to avail such opportunity, the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum within a period of thirty days hence with application along with petition explaining the delay indicating pendency of proceedings before this Court. In the event such applications are made under Section 13(3) of the Saw Mills Act, within the period stipulated above, the competent authority shall conclude the proceeding within a period of six months thereafter, keeping in view that the matter is of the year 2012/2015 and the seized goods have been confiscated since long. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of. Suchitra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 20-Jan-2025 17:59:13 (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 4 of 4