The main legal point established is that the District Judge, while exercising the appellate power under S.61D of the Kerala Forest Act, has the power to remand the matter to the authorised officer for fresh disposal. The power to remand is implicit in the appellate power and is necessary to do justice between the parties.

Sreedharan, J.

Writ petitioner in O.P.8243/1993-F is the appellant. In the Original Petition he questioned the validity of the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta while disposing of CMA37/1990 filed under S.61d of the Kerala Forest Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition taking the view that the District Judge while exercising the appellate power under S.61D of the Act can also exercise the inherent power to remand the case to the authorised officer for fresh disposal. This view is under attack in this appeal.

2. Writ petitioner-appellant before us is a registered dealer in wooden furniture. On getting information that teak wood and rose wood timber were illicitly collected by the writ petitioner from Reserve Forest, forest officials searched the premises of the writ petitioner. Sawn timber and unfinished furniture found in the premises were seized by the forest officers. On the basis that writ petitioner could not produce authentic records for the possession of the timber, steps were taken to confiscate the same as provided by S.61A of the Act. Authorised Officer, by Ext.P6 order dated 10-11-1990, confiscated the entire seized goods. Writ petitioner challenged the said order in CMA 37/1990 be fore the District Judge, Pathanamthitta. Learned District Judge by judgment dated 18-3-1993 came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the authorised officer was against all fundamental norms of judicial proceedings. Consequently the order of the authorised officer was set aside and the case was remanded to him to proceed with the same in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner-appellant raised two contentions before us. They are: that the District Judge, exercising the appellate power under S.61D of the Act, has no power to remand the matter to the authorised officer for fresh disposal and that on the facts and circumstances of this case the learned District Judge was not justified in remanding the matter to the authorised officer. We shall proceed to deal with these arguments in detail.

4. A person aggrieved by an order passed by the authorised officer confiscating the property under S.61 A of the Act or an order passed by the Conservator of Forests exercising the revisional jurisdiction under S.61C of the Act is given right to prefer an appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property was seized, as per S.61D of the Act. That District Judge shall pass such order as he may think fit, after affording an opportunity to the appellant, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. According to the learned counsel, the District Judge is exercising this appellate power as 'persona designata'. He has got only the powers conferred by the statute. He has no inherent power. The powers conferred on him by the section are to confirm the order appealed against, modify the same or annul it. If the District Judge finds sufficient reason for annulling the order, that order has to be vacated and the matter left there. According to counsel, the District Judge is not entitled to remand the case to the authorised officer for fresh disposal after setting aside the order appealed against. This argument, we are afraid, cannot be accepted.

5.District Judge is one of the existing judicial authorities exercising judicial powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an authority is chosen by the legislature to discharge the appellate function under S.61D of the Act. The District Judge is constituted the appellate authority under S.61D of the Act for doing justice and must be deemed to possess all powers as may be necessary to do the right and undo wrongs committed by the authorised officer or the revisional authority exercising powers under S.61A or S.61C of the Act. The District Judge while exercising that jurisdiction, must be deemed to have inherent powers to advance the cours