The court clarified the scope and object of S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act, emphasizing the need for forest officers to hold a belief in good faith and have a rational basis for their decisions. It also highlighted the factors that may influence the exercise of discretion and the limited scope of judicial review in administrative decisions.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Divisional Forest Officer dismissed a petition submitted by the petitioners under S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 for release of a jeep bearing registration No. KLO 2362. Petitioners have now approached this Court for a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer to release the jeep under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Range Officer, Flying Squard, Kothamangalam and other officers, while conducting night patrolling along Chathamattom-Paingottoor Road on 20.11.1995, found the jeep No. KLO 2362 loaded with timber at about 7.30 pm. Since the vehicle was driven away in high speed, Flying Squad could not seize the vehicle. On enquiry, it was revealed that the vehicle was owned by petitioners. They proceeded to the residence of the petitioners early morning on 21.11.1995 and took one Jose into custody. On questioning him, it was revealed that he was indulged in illicit transportation of forest produce. It was revealed that timber was unloaded at Thekkedath Saw Mill, Thodupuzha. The forest authorities then seized the timber from the yard of Thekkedath Saw Mill, and drew up a mahazar. Authorities were convinced that petitioners had committed forest offence and proceedings were initiated against petitioners under S.61-A of the Kerala Forest Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The third respondent, Divisional Forest Officer was also convinced that the vehicle was used for illicit transportation of forest produce. Under the above-mentioned circumstances, third respondent rejected the request of petitioner for release of the jeep under S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners have approached this Court.

3. The main contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is that while issuing the impugned order, third respondent failed to understand the scope and object of S.53 of the Kerala Forest Act. According to him, there is total non-application of mind by the third respondent. It is his case petitioners have not committed any offence under the Act and third respondent has acted on misconceived facts. Counsel submits the stand taken by third respondent that he would not release the vehicle is arbitrary and against the very purpose, and spirit of S.53 of the Act.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of third respondent. It is stated the owner of Tekkedath Saw Mill disclosed that first petitioner and one Bhaskaran were known to him. It was they who brought timber to the Saw Mill on 20.11.1995 at night. 12 pieces of teakwood and one piece of rosewood dumped in the depot yard were also shown to the forest officials and the first petitioner identified the timber. According to statement, one Bhaskaran, resident of Chathamattom, who along with first petitioner came to Thekkedath Saw Mill and played pivotal role in illicit transportation of forest, produce. Bhaskaran is now absconding. It is alleged that first petitioner has admitted he had transported contraband timber in his vehicle many times to Thekkedath Saw Mill. It is averred that the Saw Mill is notorious for illicit storage of contraband timber and the thondy timber involved in many other cases were seized from the mill. Even during the course of investigation, large quantity of suchillicit timber were seized from the Mill and the source of collection of the same is under investigation. Divisional Forest Officer accordingly came to the conclusion that petitioners are also members of the racket of smugglers of forest wealth.

5. Number of cases invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for releasing the vehicles involved in forest offences are coming up before this Court. In some of the cases, contentions have been raised mat forest officials are rejecting requests for release of the vehicles without properly understanding the scope and object of S.53 of the Act. It is alleged many vehicles are seized merely on suspicion. In some cases, it is contended, if the vehicles are not released, the parties will be