The exercise of discretion by the authorities and compliance with procedural requirements justified the confiscation of the seized forest produce and vehicle.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The two writ petitions are taken up together for hearing, since both arise from the same cause of action. Premananda Saha, the petitioner in WPA No. 8856 of 2020, runs a timber business and was transporting his products on a vehicle owned by Satyendra Singh, the petitioner in WPA No. 8852 of 2020. The authorities seized the products, along with the vehicle, on the allegation that the vehicle was carrying forest products (logs) without appropriate permit. Notice was issued to the petitioners and, upon hearing them, the Authorized Officer, Darjeeling District and Divisional Forest Officer (respondent no.3) passed an order on March 2, 2020 for confiscation of the vehicle along with the timber. Upon an appeal being preferred before the appellate authority (respondent no.2), the said authority, vide Order dated August 12, 2020 affirmed the order of respondent no.3. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petitions have been preferred by the owners of the vehicle and the timber respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the products, along with the vehicle, were seized in contravention of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Forest-Produce Transit Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1959 Rules") and Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No copy of the seizure list was handed over to the owner or driver in accordance with law, it is alleged. Moreover, signatures of independent witnesses were not taken at the time of seizure. Only the driver's signature was taken.

3. Placing reliance on [ Minati Paul vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 4 CalHN 565] , learned counsel submits that the court has power to release the offending vehicle by imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. The expression "may" occurring under Section 59D(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1927 Act"), it was held in the report, is to be interpreted as discretionary and not mandatory and for the purpose of securing justice, the vehicle may be released by imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation thereof in suitable cases.

4. Learned counsel next places reliance on State and others vs. Santosh Saha, (2000) AIR Calcutta 104 , wherein a Division Bench of this court held, inter alia that, as laid down in Wazir Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1954) AIR SC 415 , illegal seizure of goods would amount to infringement of fundamental rights and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be entitled to direct return of such goods.

5. Learned counsel next refers to Section 16 of the West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non-Forest Areas) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Act"), for the proposition that an offence, committed and punishable under the said Act, may be compounded by the concerned Officer.

6. The petitioners further submit that, in the present case, non-forest teak produce was seized. As such, it is argued that the 2006 Act, and not the 1927 Act, is applicable.

7. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the seizure took place on May 1, 2019. As such, the West Bengal Forest-Produce Transit Rules, 2019, published vide Notification No. 875/FR/O/FP/6M-11/2014 dated May 31, 2019, is not applicable to the instant case.

8. It is argued that the impugned appellate order records that transit pass was issued in respect of non-forest teak produce to the petitioners, thus, rendering the seizure illegal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities in both the matters argues that a notice was duly given to the owner, as contemplated under Section 59B of the 1927 Act (as amended in West Bengal) before confiscation. Such notice contained the requisite particulars. Moreover, the seizure list was sent to the appropriate authority thereafter in compliance with law. As such, Section 52 of the 1927 Act was also followed.

10. Learned counsel contends that, out of the total logs being