Point of law : Recording of reasons by an administrative or Quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making and it would apply equally to all decisions made by such authorities and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment in C.M.A.No.18/2012 on the file of Additional District Court-I, Kalpetta by which order of confiscation No.W4-3726/2012 dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Authorised officer, Wild Life Warden, Wayanad was confirmed.

2. Revision petitioner is the owner of sawmill in the name and style 'Nirmala Wood Industries', Sulthan Bathery. He is the 11th accused in O.R.6/12(NFS) registered by Assistant Wild Life Warden Sulthan Bathery. According to the respondent on 03.05.2012, Flying-squad, Kalpetta, upon a secret information, seized unauthorizedly kept teakwood from Bishop's House, Meenangadi. About two months prior to the seizure, three teak trees were found to be stolen from Kulachira 1972, Teak Estate within Naikkatty Station of Sulthan Bathery Range. A mahazar was prepared and O.R.No.6/2012 (NFS) was registered in connection with the seizure of the teak-wood. Two vehicles used for transportation of the teak-wood and the machineries in the mill (10 HP Texmo Motor – one, sword of sawing, cutting machine, belt) used for sawing the wood were seized by the Assistant Wildlife Warden and produced the items before the Wildlife Warden, the Authorized officer for initiating proceedings under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'). As per Order No.W.4-3726/2012 dated 01.10.2012 the Authorized officer confiscated the vehicles involved and also the machineries in the saw mill.

3. As per a common judgment, the learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge confirmed the confiscation proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner as well as the owner of the vehicles which were used for transportation of the wood items. The facts in respect of seizure of vehicle are not in issue in this case and the challenge by the petitioner is against the confiscation proceedings initiated against the machineries of his Saw mill.

4. Notice was issued to the respondents and the learned Special Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the respondents and learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents were heard. Lower court records were also called for and perused.

5. Though a contention was advanced by the revision petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the machineries in the sawmill will not come within the definition of 'tools' and that was rightly negatived by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in view of the dictum laid down in Moosa Ahamed v. Authorised Officer and Divisional Forest Officer, Trivandraum and Anr. [2014 3 KLJ 534], no such contention was raised at the time of argument before this Court though such a ground was raised in the memorandum of revision.

6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (in short petitioner), the wood was sawed in his mill after verification of the pass issued and on making entries in the register kept in his office and receiving charges for the work done. Though copy of the pass kept in the office and copy of the register in which the details of the wood sawed etc. were produced by him during hearing, none of the contentions raised by him were considered and that has caused miscarriage of justice. It is also his contention that he was informed that the timber is brought from Kallumukku Church and it has to be supplied to Meenangadi Bishop's House. Hence he had no suspicion regarding the authenticity of the wood brought for sawing. He has taken all reasonable care and caution in sawing the wood. So the confiscation of the machineries ordered is illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Mathew [1995(2) KLT 772] : [ILR 1996(1) Ker. 561] : [1995 KHC 386] and also State of Kerala v. James Thomas [2017 2 KLJ 863 : 2017 2 KHC 805 : 2017 2 KLT SN, 73].

7. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would contend that the revision petitioner was quite aware of the illicit transportation of the wood and he has not verified the pass a