Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.221 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Reeta Shree Pattanaik @ Ritashree Pattnaik …. -versus- Petitioner (s) The Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forest, Puri Wild Life Division, Puri …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) For Opp. Party (s) : : M/s. Ranju Misra, Adv. M/s. Sunil Pradhan, Adv. Mr. D. Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-30.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-31.10.2025 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming herself to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OR-02-BV-8139 which is alleged to have been seized due to
Legal Reasoning
unauthorized transportation of forest produces, has challenged the judgment/order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Wild Life Division, Puri vide Annexure-1 and also the judgment dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Page 1 of 11 learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri in FAO No.04/76 of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 2016/2015. (i) FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 2nd November, 2013, during the course of patrolling duty near Sukal Chhack area, the staff of Bramhagiri Wildlife Range and Balukhanda Wildlife Range noticed the aforesaid vehicle moving in a suspicious manner. The goods loaded in the trolley of the said vehicle were found covered with a polythene sheet. Entertaining suspicion regarding the nature of the goods, the patrolling staff detained the vehicle and conducted a search thereof. Upon such search, it was revealed that the vehicle was loaded with approximately 30 quintals of green casuarina firewood. The driver of the said vehicle was thereupon asked to produce valid documents authorizing transportation of the aforesaid forest produce. However, instead of complying, the driver absconded from the spot, abandoning the vehicle along with its load. (ii) Accordingly, the Forester, Bramhagiri Wildlife Range, seized the aforesaid vehicle along with the forest produce loaded therein, in the presence of independent witnesses available at the spot, preparing due seizure list as per law. Since the driver of the said vehicle had absconded from the scene, the Petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, was implicated in respect of the offences alleged. Consequent upon such seizure, a confiscation proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the relevant forest laws. Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (iii) During the course of adjudication of the aforesaid Confiscation Proceeding, the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, in discharge of his quasi-judicial function and with the avowed object of eliciting the veracity of the allegations while ensuring due adherence to the procedural imperatives engrafted under the statutory scheme, was pleased to delineate the following issues for determination, which formed the substratum of the enquiry:— a. Whether the procedural formalities and statutory preconditions contemplated under the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 were scrupulously observed and duly complied with in the submission of the Prosecution Report, or whether any deviation vitiated the process? b. Whether the articles and materials seized in the instant case, on proper scrutiny, would fall within the ambit of the expression “forest produce” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972? c. Whether the vehicle in question, to wit, TATA 407 bearing Registration No. OR-02-BV-8139, was demonstrably employed in the commission of the alleged forest offence, thereby attracting the confiscatory jurisdiction of the Authorized Officer? d. Whether the said infraction was perpetrated with the knowledge, consent, or connivance of the registered owner, or with the knowledge and participation of his agent or the person- Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 in-charge of the vehicle, and further, whether the persons so connected had exercised such reasonable diligence and precautionary measures as could exonerate them from liability under the governing statutory framework? (iv) Accordingly, the authority concerned i.e. the Authorized Officer- cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Wild Life Division, Puri directed for confiscation of the said vehicle. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted herein below: - “O R D E R
Decision
In view of the above findings and after carefully examining the entire case records cited above this court by virtue of my powers conferred U/S 56(2-a) of O.F. Act 1972 ordered that, 1. The seized vehicle TATA 407 bearing No.OR-02-BV-8139 is confiscated to Govt. as per sub. Sec. 12(a) of sec.56 of OFA, 1972. 2. The forest produce Green Casuarina Firewood 30 Qntls. As per seizure list involved in OR Case No.11 (Br) of 13-14 are confiscated to state as per sub-section (2-a) of section 58 of OFA. 3. The above materials will be disposed of after the appeal period is over.” (v) Being aggrieved with the above noted order of confiscation, the Petitioner preferred an appeal vide FAO No.04/76 of 2016/2015 before the Court of learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Puri which was dismissed thereby confirming the order of confiscation vide judgment dated 15.11.2016. The relevant portion of the said judgment dated 15.11.2016 is extracted herein below:- “In the case at hand, the Appellant/Owner has admitted that the driver of the vehicle was managing the seized vehicle and the driver Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 pays the income of vehicle to her. The Appellant has not started the name of driver and she has not examined the driver as a witness on her behalf before the Authorized Officer. The owner simply denied her knowledge or connivance regarding transportation of casuarina firewood in her vehicle. It is already discussed that burden lies on owner to prove that the vehicle had been used without her knowledge or connivance for commission of forest offence. In the instant case, the owner failed to prove the same. The driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of seizure of forest produce and the driver fled away. The driver did not turn up to give his statement before the Authorized Officer, explaining, either he had no knowledge regarding transportation of forest produce or he had taken all precautions not to transport the same in the vehicle. Therefore, mere saying by the owner of the vehicle that she was ignorant of transporting forest produce in the vehicle is of no use to help her in this case. The Appellant/Owner is liable for the act and commission of her agent and she cannot be protected U/s.56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act. 10. In view of aforesaid discussions, I find no illegality in the order passed by the Authorized Officer, which is impugned in this appeal.” (v) Being aggrieved with the above orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. (ii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner being the owner of the vehicle in question had no idea about illegal transportation of forest produces rather the driver of the said vehicle was involved in illegal transportation of the forest produces. (ii) The principle of vicarious liability is not applicable in the instant case as there is no contract between the employer and the employee for Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 commission of alleged offences. In fact, the Petitioner was examined and he denied the charges levelled against her. (iii) The prosecution has to prove beyond all the reasonable doubt regarding the conspiracy against the Petitioner and her driver, but, the learned District judge has given a finding that the owner failed to prove her knowledge or connivance with the driver for commission of offence. It also appears from the deposition of the Petitioner that she had taken all precautions for not transporting any contraband articles or weapons. (iii) SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The seizure of the vehicle in question was made strictly ii accordance with law, and all procedural formalities under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 were duly complied with. The seizure was affected in the presence of independent witnesses and the seizure list was prepared contemporaneously. (ii) The plea of the Petitioner being an “innocent owner” is devoid of merit, inasmuch as, under Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, the burden squarely lies upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was used without her knowledge or connivance, and that she had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent such misuse. The Petitioner has utterly failed to discharge such burden. Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 (iii) The driver of the vehicle, being under the control and employment of the Petitioner, is her agent for the purposes of the Act. The principle of vicarious responsibility, though not of penal nature, extends to confiscatory proceedings, since the statute imposes a duty upon the owner to exercise strict supervision over the use of her vehicle. The mere plea of ignorance, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot exonerate the Petitioner. (iv) Both the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests and the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri have concurrently recorded findings of fact, based on the material evidence available on record. Such concurrent findings, being neither perverse nor contrary to record, warrant no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (iv) It is further contended that the confiscation of the vehicle being a measure aimed at preventing recurrence of forest offences and ensuring deterrence against illegal felling and transport of forest produce, is consistent with the legislative intent and the public interest underlying Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the pleadings, the rival submissions canvassed on behalf of the parties, and the materials available on record, this Court proceeds to delineate its findings as under: (i) The factual substratum remains largely beyond the pale of dispute. The vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-BV-8139 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 was intercepted on 02.11.2013, while engaged in transportation of approximately thirty quintals of green Casuarina firewood devoid of any valid transit permit or authority. The driver, upon interception, absconded from the scene, thereby abandoning the vehicle and the forest produce in situ. Such conduct, by itself, creates a presumption adverse to the petitioner under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in forest jurisprudence. (ii) The Authorized Officer, having undertaken an enquiry in conformity with the procedural mandates of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and the Rules of 1980, concluded that the vehicle had indeed been used as an instrumentality in the commission of a forest offence. The petitioner, though afforded opportunity, failed to establish the absence of knowledge or connivance, as envisaged under Section 56(2-c) of the Act. The appellate authority, upon independent appraisal, affirmed those findings, thereby lending them the imprimatur of finality on concurrent factual assessment. (iii) The core constitutional and statutory question thus arises is whether the confiscation of the vehicle, in the absence of direct proof of the owner’s participation, offends the principles of proportionality, fairness, or due process, so as to invite correction under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, the scheme of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act is not retributive but preventive and remedial in its essence. It seeks Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 not to punish the offender but to disable the instrumenta sceleris—the means employed for plunder of forest wealth. The provision embodies a preventive jurisprudence anchored in the public trust doctrine, recognizing that natural resources, particularly forests, constitute a collective heritage of the community, over which the State acts as a trustee. Hence, confiscation operates as a regulatory measure to safeguard environmental integrity rather than a penal sanction aimed at deterrence through punishment. (v) The statutory presumption under Section 56(2-c) imposes upon the owner a reverse evidentiary burden, a device jurisprudentially justified under the principle of strict and constructive liability in environmental and socio-economic legislations. Ignorance, in such context, is not exculpatory unless fortified by demonstrable proof of due diligence, reasonable supervision, and preventive vigilance. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Gopal Sarkar (2002) and State of M.P. v. Kallo Bai (2017) reiterated that confiscation proceedings are civil in nature, distinct from criminal prosecutions, and do not hinge upon mens rea but upon failure of control—an approach consonant with the preventive philosophy of environmental governance. (vi) In the case at hand, the petitioner has neither disclosed the identity of the absconding driver nor examined him to substantiate her plea of innocence. The unexplained flight of Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 the driver, coupled with the absence of any evidence that the petitioner exercised meaningful oversight, issued cautionary directions, or imposed operational restrictions, militates against her plea of bona fides. The principle of culpable negligence applies with equal vigour here; omission to act with vigilance when statutory responsibility exists is, in law, equivalent to connivance. (vii) The contention that the doctrine of vicarious liability has no application to confiscatory proceedings stands misplaced. The confiscation mechanism under the forest laws constitutes a self-contained code, operating independent of the criminal process. It is sui generis in nature, informed by the maxim salus populi suprema lex—that the welfare of the people and the preservation of ecological assets override individual proprietary interests. The owner’s liability, though civil in form, is imbued with the spirit of Constitutional environmentalism, harmonizing Article 48-A and Article 51- A(g) with statutory purpose. (viii) Viewed thus, the concurrent findings recorded by the statutory fora below neither betray perversity nor reflect any non-application of mind. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226, being supervisory and not appellate, does not warrant re- appreciation of evidence unless the decision suffers from manifest illegality, procedural impropriety, or patent unreasonableness. No such infirmity is discernible in the Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2025 16:03:14 present case. The confiscation order, therefore, stands as a legitimate exercise of statutory discretion grounded in sound jurisprudential principle and environmental necessity. V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER: 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Both the orders passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Puri Wildlife Division, Puri dated 19.09.2015 and the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Puri dated 15.11.2016 are well- reasoned and founded upon due appreciation of law and evidence. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The order of confiscation of the vehicle bearing registration No. OR-02-BV-8139 and the forest produce seized therein is hereby affirmed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st October, 2025/ (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Page 11 of 11