Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
M/s. S & S Goods Private Limited rep. by Its Manager Mr. R. Vedantam
Versus
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Another
W.P.No.882 of 2008
Decided on : 04-09-2008
Confiscation - Tamil Nadu Forest Act - Section 35B, Section 49A, Section 55 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 35B, Section 49A, and Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. It highlighted the discretionary power of the Authorized Officer to either order for confiscation or return of the goods, the finality of orders of confiscation, and the limitations on the officer's power to withdraw an order of confiscation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sandalwood dealer, sought the release of sandalwood seized by forest officials. The officials had seized the sandalwood and allowed compounding of the offence, but later withdrew the orders of confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property cannot be returned to the petitioner company as the orders of confiscation had become final, and the officer's withdrawal of the orders was without jurisdiction. The court also noted that the company was not shown as an accused and could not maintain the writ petition.
Issues: The issues included the authority's power to order for confiscation or return of the goods, the finality of orders of confiscation, and the petitioner company's standing to maintain the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Authorized Officer has discretionary power to order for confiscation or return of the goods, and the orders of confiscation become final if no appeal is preferred. The court also emphasized that the officer's withdrawal of the orders of confiscation was without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for the return of the sandalwood. No costs were awarded.
The petitioner is a private limited company known as M/s. S & S Goods Private Limited. The said company is represented by its Manager, one Mr.R.Vedantam. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the second respondent in his proceedings in Ref.No.A2/3821/06 dated 27.04.2007, seeking to quash the same and for a further direction for the release of the sandalwood seized on 21.01.2006 from the petitioners godown situated at 109, GNT Road, Ponniamman Medu, Madhavaram, Chennai-110.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is a dealer in sandalwood doing export of sandalwood. On 21.01.2006, the forest officials headed by the then Assistant Conservator of Forests, one Mr. C. Sreerangaram conducted a raid at the business premises of the petitioners mill. He found 73.175 kgs of sandalwood in two bags of total value of Rs.35,000/-, illegally stored in the godown. The said property was seized under the cover of a mahazar. Mr.
N. Seetharaman, who was the then Accountant at the said office of the petitioner, was present during the search. He gave a statement to the Assistant Conservator of Forests confessing that he possessed the above said quantity of sandalwood in violation of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. He admitted the guilt and prayed for leniency in the matter of punishment. His statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses on 16.02.2006 itself. On the basis of the said search conducted and seizure made, a case in Forest Offence Report No.3/2006 was registered on 21.01.2006 against N. Seetharaman for offence under Section 35B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.
(ii) During the same search, another quantity of 73.175 kgs of sandalwood was found. The value of the same is Rs.35,000/-. Since the same was also illegally stored, it was also seized by the Assistant Conservator of Forests under the cover of a Mahazar. Mr. Vedantam, who was present during the search gave a statement confessing to the guilt. He also prayed for leniency in the matter of punishment. His statement was recorded and thereafter, a case in Forest Offence Report No.2/2006 dated 16.02.2006 was registered against Mr. R. Vedantam under Section 35B of the Tamilnadu Forest Act.
3. Subsequently, the Assistant Conservator of Forests Mr. C. Sreerangaram, by his proceedings in STOR.No.3/2006 dated 22.02.2006 allowed Mr. Seetharaman to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs.75,000/-as compounding fee under Section 55 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act. In the same proceeding, he passed an order confiscating the sandalwood seized. Similarly, in the case in Forest Offence Report No.2 of 2006, the Assistant Conservator of Forests by his proceedings in STOR No.2 of 2006 dated 22.02.2006 allowed Mr. Vedantam to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compounding fee. In the same proceeding, the Assistant Conservator of Forests ordered confiscation of the entire quantity of 73.175 kgs of sandalwood seized.
4. Against the orders of confiscation made by the Authorized Officer cum Assistant Conservator of Forests as stated above, there was no appeal preferred either by Seetharaman or by Vedantam or by the petitioner company as provided under Section 49D of the Act. Thus, the orders of confiscation made in both the cases have become final.
5. Subsequently, it appears that the very same Authorized Officer cum Assistant Conservator of Forests C. Sreerangaram issued another order on 110. 2006, thereby, withdrawing the earlier orders of confiscation made under Section 49A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Forest (Amendment) Act, 1992 on the ground that it is a duplication of confiscation of seized goods already made under Section 55 r/w Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.
.6. Subsequently, the petitioner company has issued a legal notice through Mr. T. Datchina Murthy, Advocate on the instructions of R. Vedantam, Manager of M/s.S & S Good Pvt. Ltd namely, the petitioner company. In the said notice, it has been contended that the petitioner c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
