The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7360 of 2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227of the Constitution of India, 1950). State of Odisha …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Aditya Kumar Mallick (owner) & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Ms. Jyotsnamayee Sahoo, ASC Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-13.05.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-20.06.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, prays for setting aside the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in F.A.O. No. 03 of 2022, whereby the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar in OR Case No. 135CH of 2019-20 was set aside, and the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., Page 1 of 10 HGV bearing Registration No. OD-02-AR-5765, was held entitled to Signature Not Verified
Facts
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 release of the vehicle in accordance with law. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 27.12.2019, while the forest staff were performing night patrolling on the Gogudari–Lunuguthani road near village Lunuguthani at about 10:00 P.M., they saw an HGV vehicle bearing registration No. OD-02-AR-5765 proceeding from the Gogudari side towards Lunuguthani, loaded with iron ore. (ii) The driver and helper, i.e., Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, were asked to produce legal documents, but they could not do so and instead admitted that the loaded iron ore had been illegally procured from GugudariKhesra forest area and was being transported to Basudevpur. (iii) The Forest Officials, being convinced that a forest offence had been committed involving the transportation of illegally procured forest produce using the said vehicle, seized the forest produce and registered FIR No. 0054959/2758 dated 27.12.2019. A forest case was also registered as O.R. Case No. 135CH/2019-20 for violation of Rules 4, 12, and 14 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980. (iv) On 28.12.2019, the accused persons were produced, interrogated, and their confessional statements were recorded. Both accused persons confessed that, under the instructions of the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Opposite Party No. 1, they were transporting illegally procured iron Page 2 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 ore from the Gramya Jungle of Gugudari village to Basudevpur for commercial purposes. (v) Opposite Party No. 1 was issued notices on 11.01.2020 and 31.01.2020 to appear before the Authorised Officer. Pursuant to a requisition made to the Tahsildar, a joint verification was conducted on 02.02.2020, which revealed that the site of illegal procurement of iron ore falls under Plot No. 4, Khata No. 54, classified as Gramya Jungle Kisam. (vi) Opposite Party No. 1 was again issued notice on 25.02.2020. Despite issuance of notices on three occasions, he did not respond. (vii) Based on the investigation, documentary and circumstantial evidence corroborating the facts, it was ascertained that a forest offence had been committed involving the illegal procurement and transportation of forest produce, namely 16.8 MT (approximately) of iron ore, from Gugudari Gramya Jungle in the alleged vehicle, within the meaning of Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. It was observed that
Legal Reasoning
there existed prima facie evidence of violation of Rules 4 and 12 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, punishable under Rule 21 of the said Rules. It was further found that the offence had been committed after sunset. Upon consideration of the entire evidence available on record and after hearing both parties, the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar Division, passed an order dated 31.12.2021 confiscating the vehicle to the State. (viii) Challenging the said order, Opposite Party No. 1 preferred F.A.O. No. 03 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge held that the confiscation Page 3 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 proceeding was not sustainable in the eye of law due to lack of a statutory inquiry as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Inquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980. The Court further observed that the seized material, being iron ore, is classified as minor forest produce under the relevant rules, and therefore, no transit permit was required for its transportation within the district. On the basis of these observations and findings, the learned District Judge, by order dated 14.12.2023, set aside the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar in OR Case No. 135CH of 2019–20 and directed that the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., HGV bearing Registration No. OD-02-AR-5765, is entitled to get back the vehicle in accordance with law. (ix) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, the II. 3. (i) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside, as the findings suffer from perversity. The Authorised Officer had clearly recorded that iron ore, which qualifies as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, was seized from the alleged vehicle and was being transported by the present Opposite Parties. (ii) The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside, as the findings suffer from perversity. Page 4 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 The Authorised Officer had clearly recorded that iron ore, which qualifies as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, was seized from the alleged vehicle and was being transported by the present Opposite Parties. (iii) Iron ore is classified as forest produce under Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, and a transit permit is mandatorily required for its extraction and transportation. In the absence of such a permit, both the forest produce and the vehicle used become liable for seizure and confiscation under Section 56(2)(a) of the Act. (iv) The learned District Judge failed to appreciate that an inquiry under Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 is not mandatory. The seizure report and list, prepared post-detection, are sufficient for an officer of the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest or above to form a prima facie opinion and initiate confiscation proceedings. (v) The Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980, framed under Section 72 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, do not apply to confiscation proceedings under Section 56. Such proceedings are governed by sub-sections (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c) of Section 56. In support, reliance was placed on Anatha Bandhu Mandal v. State of Odisha & Others.1 (vi) The District Judge erred in holding that there was no evidence of transportation beyond the district. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 4 established that the iron ore was being transported to Basudevpur, which lies outside the district, without a transit permit. This evidence 1(II) OLR (FB) 2015. Page 5 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 was not shaken in cross-examination. Further, the District Judge overlooked the unchallenged statements of PWs 2 and 4 regarding the destination, which amounted to implied admission. (vii) DW-1 (Opposite Party No. 1) admitted that he neither retained nor verified any identity document of the driver, nor a copy of his driving licence. These omissions show failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent illegal transportation. (viii) The Odisha Forest Act is a welfare statute intended to preserve forests and forest produce. In the present case, all ingredients of a forest offence were established, and the confiscation was rightly ordered. The District Judge erred in setting aside the order. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar, concluded that the vehicle was transporting forest produce without a transit permit and accordingly passed the confiscation order dated 31.12.2021. Aggrieved, the deponent preferred F.A.O. No. 03 of 2022 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar, contending that the confiscation was vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 4(2) of the Odisha (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980. While a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4(1) had been conducted by the Forester, the mandatory statutory enquiry by the Range Officer under Rule 4(2) was not conducted. (ii) Under Rule 4 of the 1980 Rules, the Forester must conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit Form No. 1 to the Range Officer, who Page 6 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 is then required to carry out an independent enquiry and forward the case record to the Authorised Officer. In the present case, although PW-4 (Range Officer) claimed to have conducted such an enquiry, PW-1’s testimony established that the investigation was conducted solely by the Forester. (iii) The District Judge, upon examining the evidence, held that the confiscation proceeding was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the 1980 Rules. As per settled law, when a statute prescribes a specific procedure, any deviation renders the action unsustainable. Accordingly, the confiscation was held to be vitiated for want of statutory compliance. (iv) In Rabinarayan Sahu v. Forest Range Officer of Soroda Range & Others2, this Court held that where a statute prescribes a particular mode for the exercise of statutory power, it must be followed strictly or not at all. (v) The vehicle was seized near Village Lunugutumi in Keonjhar District while allegedly transporting iron ore from Gugudari Gramya Jungle. As per Rule 5(i) of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, no transit permit is required for transporting minor forest produce, such as iron ore, within the same district. Therefore, the District Judge rightly held that no transit permit was necessary and that the confiscation order was unsustainable. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 2(2008) 41 OCR 284. Page 7 of 10 6. The principal issue for determination is whether the learned District Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 Judge erred in setting aside the confiscation order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-ACF, Keonjhar, on the grounds of (a) non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(2) of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980, and (b) absence of a requirement for a transit permit under the applicable rules. In order to examine the correctness of the impugned order, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions governing the confiscation of forest produce and the procedural safeguards thereunder. Section 2(g)(ii)(d) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 defines "forest produce" to include minerals, such as iron ore, when found in or brought from a forest. Section 56(2) of the Act empowers the Authorised Officer to order confiscation of forest produce, along with any tools, vehicles, or 7. 8. 9. articles used in the commission of a forest offence. 10. Rule 4 of the Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 outlines a two-stage inquiry mechanism. Under Rule 4(1), the Forester is required to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit the report in Form No. 1 to the Range Officer. Rule 4(2) mandates that the Range Officer must then conduct an independent enquiry and, upon satisfaction that a forest offence has been committed, forward the case record to the Authorised Officer for further action. Page 8 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 11. The language of Rule 4(2) is unequivocal. The requirement for an independent enquiry by the Range Officer is not a mere formality but a mandatory procedural safeguard. It is intended to prevent arbitrary confiscation and ensure an objective evaluation before property is 12. 13. deprived. Further, it is a well-settled principle of law that where a statute prescribes a particular mode for exercising a statutory power, such procedure must be followed strictly. In the instant case, the learned District Judge has returned a categorical finding, based on the evidence on record, that there was no compliance with Rule 4(2). While PW-1 (Forester) conducted the preliminary enquiry, there is no credible material to show that PW-4 (Range Officer) undertook an independent enquiry or even verified the facts before forwarding the case record to the Authorised Officer. The absence of this mandatory step renders the confiscation proceedings unsustainable in law. 14. On the second limb of the District Judge’s reasoning, namely the requirement of a transit permit, the Court finds no error. The evidence led by the prosecution regarding transportation beyond district limits was not conclusive. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 4, while suggestive of a destination outside Keonjhar district, were not substantiated by documentary or corroborative evidence. 15. Rule 5(i) of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 provides that no transit permit is required for transporting minor forest produce within the same district. In the absence of clear evidence that the consignment was intended for transport beyond Page 9 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jun-2025 16:53:36 district boundaries, the learned District Judge was justified in holding that the confiscation could not be sustained for lack of a permit. 16. The confiscation of private property, particularly vehicles, involves serious civil consequences. It must, therefore, be predicated on scrupulous adherence to the statutory procedure. In this case, the District Judge’s conclusion is based on sound legal reasoning and a correct appreciation of the evidentiary record. 17. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or procedural irregularity in the impugned order that would justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. V. CONCLUSION: 18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned and legally sound order passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. The findings recorded therein are based on a correct interpretation of the applicable statutory provisions and a proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge in F.A.O. No.03 of 2022 is hereby affirmed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 19. 20. 21. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the20th June, 2025 Page 10 of 10