Back
1997 Supreme(Cal) 56
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Satyabrata Sinha, J.
Subash Roy
Versus
State of West Bengal
WRIT W.P. 1591 (W) of 1997
Decided On : February 3, 1997
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Environmental Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Confiscation - Forest Act - Validity of confiscation proceeding regarding machineries and/or Saw Mill - The court held that the impugned confiscation proceeding as regards the machineries and/or Saw Mill of the petitioner cannot be held to be valid in terms of s. 59A(3) of the Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal, as Saw Mill is neither a timber nor a forest produce, nor can be treated to be a property of the State Government. Confiscation of such machinery is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The court held that the impugned confiscation proceeding regarding the machineries and/or Saw Mill of the petitioner cannot be held to be valid under the Forest Act as Saw Mill is neither a timber nor a forest produce, nor can be treated to be a property of the State Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the concerned respondents to release the seized machinery forthwith and allowed the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of license, to be considered within a period of four weeks from the date of filing.
Issues: Validity of confiscation proceeding regarding machineries and/or Saw Mill under the Forest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the confiscation of the petitioner's machinery and/or Saw Mill was invalid as Saw Mill is neither a timber nor a forest produce, nor can be treated to be a property of the State Government.
Final Decision: The court directed the release of the seized machinery and allowed the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of license.
Advocate Appeared:
Jahar Lal Dey, Saidur Rahaman for the petitioner;
Subrata Mukhopadhyay for the State.
S.B. Sinha, J.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned confiscation proceeding as regards the machineries and/or Saw Mill of the petitioner cannot be held to be valid in terms of s. 59A(3) of the Forest Act as amended by the State of West Bengal, in view of the fact that such a proceeding could be initiated only when any timber or forest produce which are the properties of the State Government, are produced before an Authorised Officer under sub-so (1) and the Authorised Officer is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect of such property. Saw Mill is neither a timber nor a forest produce, nor can be treated to be a property of the State Government. Confiscation of such machinery is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The concerned respondents are directed to apply their mind before initiating any such proceeding in future, failing which, this court shall be constrained to award damages as against the concerned officer personally besides the State. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kamlesh Kumar Chhabra vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported in AIR 1985 M.P. 130.
2. The respondent no. 3 is, therefore, directed to release the seized machinery forthwith. The petitioner may also file a fresh application for grant of licence which may be considered by the concerned respondent at an early date and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application. This application is disposed of accordingly.
3. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.
Application disposed of.
