The burden is on the owner to prove lack of knowledge of illicit timber transport, and conflicting orders or decisions in respect of the same subject-matter are destructive of juristic approach and thought and cannot be countenanced in law.

1.The State of Kerala challenges the order of the District Judge. Ernakulam, directing the release of a tempo van confiscated earlier by orders of the Forest authorities. The brief facts are these.

2. The Tempo van, KRR 3769 belonged to Sri. P. D. Jose, the registered owner. It seems he has given it on hire to Sri. K. R. Pushpan, the first respondent. The hirer has appointed his own driver and cleaner. On 10-2-1983 the cleaner who has a driving licence but no badge, took the vehicle out and it is said he had no permission of the hirer or the driver. It was not however an empty, vehicle. It was loaded with freshly sawn timber pieces and the vehicle had some destination, for it was taken out to the public road, driven for some distance and intercepted by. the public near a toll gate. It was thus not an innocent trip by an ignorant cleaner, though professedly the hirer disclaims any knowledge of the episode.

3. Criminal investigation commenced. Alerted, the forest authorities also swung into action. The forest authorities came to the conclusion that the timber pieces loaded in the van were portions of a'Pali' tree cut from the Malayattur reserved forest. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under S.61-A of the Kerala Forest Act. The Divisional Forest Officer is the authorised officer under the Act. He issued notice to the owner, the hirer, driver and others and passed an order confiscating the vehicle. He found that an offence under S.27 of the Forest Act has been committed in respect of the sawn pieces found in the Tempo van, that the van was engaged for the transport of the said timber with the full knowledge of the person who was driving the vehicle, he was acting as the agent of the owner and the hirer and the vehicle itself was liable to be confiscated under S.61-A(2) of the Act.

4. This order thus binds the owner, the hirer, the vehicle and others. An appeal was filed before the District Judge by the hirer alone, the first respondent. He did not implead even the owner of the vehicle. The District Judge reversed the order of confiscation and directed release. He found that the Cleaner had no authority to drive the vehicle, even though he was driving the vehicle during the course of his employment as a Cleaner, that no knowledge can be attributed to the owner or hirer, and taking into consideration the fact that the van was worth Rs. 80,000/- and was used for transporting illicit timber worth only Rs. 200/- the discretion exercised by the Divisional Forest Officer to confiscate was wrong and thus directed release.

5. Aggrieved by this order of the release of the vehicle, this writ petition is filed. The Divisional Forest Officer, the authorised officer moved this Court. The District Judge, Appellate Authority, was not impleaded. A preliminary objection that the primary authority under the Act cannot challenge the appellate authority's decision and that the District Judge, the Appellate Authority, has to be made a party to this proceeding was upheld by order dated 28-9-1983. (1983 KLT. 951)

6. Thereafter the State of Kerala figures as the first petitioner and the District Judge has been impleaded. The defects have been cured and the petition has been heard on the merits.

7. Two questions arise for determination.

(a) whether the District Judge, sitting in appeal had jurisdiction to set aside confiscation of the vehicle without the owner on the party array.

(b) whether the District Judge has committed any patent error in releasing the vehicle.

8. Confiscation divests private ownership and possession and vests them in State ownership and control. The impact of the confiscation is intense and immediate, It affects the owner and arrests the user. When a vehicle is confiscated, it binds the owner and follows the vehicle in private hands.

9. In this case the registered owner of the vehicle has accepted and acquiesced in the order of confiscation. He can therefore no longer put the vehicle on the road. If he cannot do so, his age