1. Rarely does the State, the repository of executive power approach the High Court as a petitioner for relief under its writ jurisdiction. Strong as the arms of the law are, the Court cannot make any distinction between the State and the citizen in the discharge of its duties.

2. A seizure of a tempo van with logs of timber alleged to be involved in forest offences, a subsequent order of confiscation by the Divisional Forest Officer under the Kerala Forest Act, a reversal of his decision by the District Judge in appeal and a consequent direction to release the vehicle has given rise to this writ petition. The State, it is said, is aggrieved by this decision.

3. The State, however, has not filed this original petition. It is filed curiously by the Divisional Forest Officer, whose decision was set aside in appeal. Can this Court countenance his grievance?

4. Assuming the writ petition is maintainable at his instance, is not the District Judge, the Appellate Authority a necessary party in this proceeding for the issue of a writ of certiorari. These two preliminary points deserve serious consideration.

5. The right to confiscate under the Forest Act is vested in the authorised