District Forest Officer has no power to confiscate vehicle automatically.

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as "the Forest Department") filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petitioner"), challenging the power of the Forest Department to confiscate the vehicle of the writ petitioner under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. Concededly, action was initiated against the writ petitioner for having attempted to hunt in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the same was compounded by the Forest Department themselves invoking the power conferred under Section 54 of the Act. However, the Forest Department did not release the vehicle used for the said contravention of the provisions of the Act, but confiscated the same by an order dated 1.2.2000, which is impugned in W.P.No.8813 of 2000.

3. According to the Forest Department, the vehicle, vessels, weapon, trap or tool which are used for committing an offence are liable to be seized as per Section 39(1)(d) of the Act, and the animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government as per Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, and therefore, it is contended that the impugned vehicle of the writ petitioner, namely Jeep bearing registration No.TN-33-E-5979 was rightly confiscated by the Forest Department.

4. However, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Forest Department admitted before the learned Single Judge that the vehicle could not be confiscated on the basis of the provisions as available in the statute. The learned single Judge, by order dated 15.12.2000, therefore, finding that Section 39(1)(d) of the Act even though empowers the authorities under the Act to seize the vehicle, it does not empower them to confiscate the vehicle, held that the vehicle used for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act, after compounding the said contravention, could not be confiscated automatically and thus, directed the Forest Department to release the vehicle on production of the said order. Hence, the above writ appeal by the Forest Department.

5.1. Mr.P.Rathinavel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Forest Department, submits that the vehicle automatically shall become the property of the Government as per Section 39(1)(b) of the Act and the confiscation of the vehicle is valid as the offence had been compounded invoking Section 54 of the Act.

5.2. Placing reliance on Section 52 of the Act, the learned Government Advocate contends that whoever attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of, any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule or order made thereunder shall be deemed to have contravened that provisions or rule or order, as the case may be, and therefore, even though the Forest Department had not tried the writ petitioner for any specific offence, as the same was compounded under Section 54 of the Act, there is no necessity to pass an independent order of forfeiture.

5.3. According to the learned Government Advocate, the order passed by the Forest Department compounding the offence becomes conclusive and therefore, the impugned jeep becomes the property of the Government. Hence, no separate proceedings are required to confiscate the vehicle.

6. Per contra, Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that in the absence of any specific power to confiscate the vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing the alleged offence, the same are not liable to be confiscated.

7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.

8.1. It is true that as per Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, any animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government and Section 39(1)(d) of the Act empowers the authorities under the Act to seize the vehicle, vessels, weapon, trap or tool that ha