The Divisional Forest Officer exercises a quasi-judicial function and is subject to the hierarchy under the Kerala Forest Act. The decision in appeal must be abided by, and relevant case law can be referred to in support of the court's decision.

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 officer, the Divisional Forest Officer. He exercises a quasi judicial function. He has to observe the principles of natural justice, conform to the procedure prescribed under the Act, apply his own mind and then decide on the evidence whether confiscation is necessary in the circumstances of the case. For this purpose he functions as a Tribunal. He has no personal or official interest in the cause. He has to be just and upright; fair and impartial. After he issues the order, he has no more interest in the proceeding. He becomes functus officio as far as the case is concerned. He is the lowest in the hierarchy under the Act. His decision is subject to revision under S.61C of the Act and appealable under S.61D. The District Judge is the appellate authority. Administrative discipline, judicial decorum and the statutory safeguards demand that he abides by the decision in appeal. He cannot ignore or challenge the decision of the appellate authority. Challenge, if any, can be made by other aggrieved persons or authorities; but not by the Tribunal. If he cannot challenge the decision of the appellate authority, he cannot have recourse to writ proceedings to achieve the same object. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries v. Income Tax Officer, AIR. 1961 SC. 182, is instructive:

"Where the Income-tax officer had virtually refused to carry out the clear and unambiguous directions which a superior tribunal like the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had given to him by its final order in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him, such refusal is in effect a denial of justice, and is further more destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is on the hierarchy of courts. In such a case a writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justitiae to compel the Income Tax officer to carry out the directions given to him by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court would be clearly in error if it refused to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice had resulted from the order of the Income Tax Officer in view of the error committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice."

6. The Divisional Forest Officer cannot therefore maintain this writ petition at all. If the State has a grievance, it has to figure as the petitioner; but not through the quasi judicial Tribunal, the Divisional Forest Officer constituted under the Act.

7. Moreover, in certiorari proceedings the District Judge, the Tribunal constituted under the Forest Act is a necessary party. It is his order that is being challenged. Without him on the party array, without his records, no writ can issue either. The Su