Prasad K.N. v. State of Kerala and The Devikulam Forest Range Officer, Munnar Division, and The Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar Division, Devikulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRASAD K.N. AGED 51 YEARS** **S/O.NARAYANAN, KOLLAMAVUDI HOUSE,MANNAMKANDAM, ADIMALY, IDUKKI (DIST.)** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2 THE DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, PIN-685612. 3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM, PIN-685613. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents 2 & 3 to release petitioner's vehicle bearing Nos.KL-10-AB-4585 without any delay. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; 2. Petitioner is arrayed as the 5[th] accused in O.R No.16/2015 of the Devikulam Forest Range Office, Munnar Division. Petitioner challenged the above proceedings before this court by filing Crl.M.C No.4316/2015, which was admitted by this court on 13.7.2015 and stayed all further proceedings. Thereafter on 20.12.2018, Crl.M.C. was finally disposed of by this court directing the respondents to file a final report before 20.2.2019. On 7.2.2019, 2[nd] respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him and give a statement regarding the O.R. in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. Accordingly petitioner appeared before the 2[nd] respondent and gave the statement. While so, petitioner submitted an application for renewal of Goods Permit for the WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 3 vehicle concerned, which was to be expired on 26.12.2018, but the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Devikulam rejected the renewal application by Order dated 16.1.2019 assigning the reason that, based on a letter issued by the 2[nd] respondent dated 7.2.2019, the vehicle was involved in forest offence. Therefore, the permit cannot be renewed. Thereupon, challenging the said order, petitioner has approached before this court by filing W.P.(C) No.4022/2019, which is pending consideration before this court. While so, on 8.3.2019, 2[nd] respondent directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle, otherwise the petitioner will be arrested. Petitioner has thereupon submitted Ext.P5 reply stating that, it is a garaged vehicle under Rule 10 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1975 and only with the permission of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, the vehicle can be taken out, which according to the petitioner, was refused to be accepted by the said respondent. However, on 9.3.2019 the 2[nd] respondent along with six other identifiable persons came to petitioner's workshop and forcibly taken possession of the vehicle without observing any procedure for seizure of the vehicle under WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 4 investigation. Thereupon, petitioner has filed a complaint before the 3[rd] respondent on 9.3.2019 itself, evident from Ext.P6. Ext.P7 complaint is also filed before the Adimaly Police Station on 9.3.2019. The case projected by the petitioner is that, the entire approach of the respondents is violative of sections 52 and 61A of the Forest Act. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this court in **DFO, Kothamangalam v. Suny Joseph** [2002 (3)KLT 641] and submitted that, the vehicle can be seized only if there is evidence to connect the vehicle with Forest offence and said seizure is not to be done after a long time. 3. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 9.3.2019 from the premises of the petitioner after much difficulty and securing Police assistance. The seizure of the vehicle and production of it before the authorised officer was reported to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam on 16.3.2019. It is also stated that, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used to transport illegally collected trees from 1965 Kuttiar Valley WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 5 Plantation, which is a part of proposed Kannan Devan Hills Reserve Forest notified under Kerala Forest Act, 1961. That apart it is pointed out that, the investigation could not be completed or proceeded with since the subject matter was stayed by this court in Crl.M.C. No.4316/2016. Since the vehicle seized was used for the illegal transportation of timber, which is the property of the Government, it is produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, who is authorised to initiate proceedings as per section 61A of Act, 1961. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 5. The relief sought for by the petitioner is, for releasing the vehicle to the petitioner without any delay. The contention advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that, 3[rd] respondent, who is the competent authority to take further action has not issued any notice or intimation to the petitioner, which is arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted that, the time limit fixed by this court by filing final report as per Ext.P1 judgment has expired on WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 6 20.2.2019 and the respondents have not asked for extension of time to submit the final report from this court. Therefore, the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle after the date fixed by this court to file the final report is also arbitrary and illegal. 6. From the discussion of facts made above it is clear that, the vehicle was seized on 9.3.2019 and the matter was reported before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam on 16.3.2019. The subject matter is now under consideration before the 3[r][d] respondent i.e., the competent authority to consider the issue. Since the vehicle was seized after registering a crime by the authorised authorities, it is for the petitioner to pursue his remedies either under the provisions of the Forest Act or before the Magistrate concerned since the seizure of the vehicle was reported before the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in my considered view, the relief sought for by the petitioner to release the vehicle to the petitioner cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance and it is dismissed, WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 7 however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law. **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** WP(C).No. 8589 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO./4316/2015. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT AND DOCUMENTS BY PETITIONER DATED 16.2.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM G DATED 31.12.2018 BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.3.2019 BY PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.3.2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE POLICE DATED 9.3.19.**