Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader.

2. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 21.7.2015 in W.P.(C) No.18768 of 2015. The writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for the following reliefs :-

"i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P2, and quash the same by way of issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

ii. Direct the respondent not to proceed with Ext.P2, by way of issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to release the vehicles to the petitioner."

3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the writ appeal are as follows :-

The petitioner's two vehicles bearing registration Nos.KL-38-C-3739 and KL-09-T-1775 were seized by the forest officials under Sec.52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is stated that the petitioner was not served with any notice for confiscation or any order of confiscation. Ext.P2 notice dated 1.6.2015 was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of `6,20,000/- as value of both the vehicles, failing which, the vehicles shall be put to public auction. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition noticing the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 2.12.2008 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar and others [2009 (1) KHC 30]. The learned Single Judge has upheld Ext.P2 order. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment, in which, the learned Single Judge has given reasons for dismissing the writ petition, which are to the following effect :-

"5. Further, it is to be noticed that a Division Bench of this Court in M.A.C.A. No.1458/2006 dated 2.12.2008 had specifically taken note of the manner in which the automobiles seized in pursuance of detection of offences are kept idle for long period, which results in virtually rendering them scrap after long period of time. In such circumstance, confiscation also would not be of any benefit to the Government since the vehicles would have been rendered useless by the time proceedings are completed. The alleged offender would also be prejudiced insofar as the owner not being able to enjoy the fruits of the order of acquittal, if so eventually found.

6. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no infirmity in Ext.P2 order. The authorised officer has only directed the sale of the vehicle with 7 days, in the event of the petitioner not providing sufficient security, in lieu of the value of the vehicle. The sale, if conducted, the proceeds would not be forfeited to the Government and it would definitely depend on the confiscation proceedings. If the proceedings are finalised clearing the alleged offender of the blame, then the amount would have to be re-funded. Hence, the prejudice to the registered owner of the vehicle is avoided as also interest of the Government safeguarded."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the judgment, contended that Chapter VIII of the Act provides for 'offences, penalties and procedure'. Sec.52 empowers 'seizure of property including confiscation'. Sec.61A provides for 'confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases'. It is useful to quote Secs.52 and 61A, which are to the following effect :-

"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation.-

(1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or other forest produce, such timber or produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer.

Explanation.- The terms 'boats' and 'vehicles' in this section, [Section 53, Section 55, Section 61A and Section 61B] shall include all the articles and machinery kept