The absence of specific guidelines in a statute does not necessarily render it unconstitutional, provided that there are adequate guidelines inferred from the policy of the law, the objects and reasons for the amendment, the history of the times, and matters of common knowledge.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 56 (2) and S. 56 (2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') are ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, by reason of vesting of unbriddled, uncanalised, unregulated powers in forest officers.

( 2 ) THOUGH several grounds were taken in the writ application assailing the vires of the aforesaid provisions, challenge to the vires of S. 56 (2-a) was not canvassed before us on the ground of (a) of absence of guidelines, (b) that the provision for confiscation or criminal prosecution visited upon the person double jeopardy and (c) that the provision for confiscation is harsher than the procedure for trial before a criminal court, having regard to the decision of this Court in Jogender Singh v. State of Orissa (O. G. C. Nos. 2062, 2541 and 2697 of 1983 disposed of on 17-8-1990): Reported in (1990) 70 Cut LT 613, where the vires assailed on the aforesaid grounds was upheld.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has therefore, confined his submission to only aspect, namely, the provision contained in Ss. 56 (2) and 56 (2-a) are ultra vires in the absence of any guideline as to the selection of the mode to be adopted. The provisions do not indicate the counsel contends when a proceeding for confiscation is to be initiated or when a criminal prosecution is to be launched or even when both are to be initiated. Hence, it is argued that absence of any guideline for the classification renders the provisions unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has urged that the object of the Act and the reasons for the amendment of sub-section (2) and incorporation of sub-sections (2-a) to (2-e) furnish sufficient guidelines and it is the further stand of the State Government that the word 'or' occurring in sub-section (2) should be read as 'and' having regard to the scheme of the Act and hence there is no option left to the forest officer to choose at his sweetwill the mode to be adopted in regard to the person when he has reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of forest produce.

( 4 ) THOUGH the provisions now contained in the Orissa Forest Act by Orissa Act 9 of 1983 are in Pari materia with the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 the provisions introduced by Orissa Act 9 of 1983 were also verbatim the same as the provisions which were introduced by the amendment to the Andhra Pradesh Act by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act, 1976. Hence, this Court in Jogender Singh's case (1990 (70) Cut LT 613) (supra) adopted and followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. Sudhakar Rao, AIR 1986 SC 328 328 to hold that the provisions contained in Section 56 (2-a) did not suffer from any constitutional vice for lack of guidelines nor was the provision for confiscation harsher than the procedure for trial before a criminal court nor did the person suffer any double jeopardy by reason of being proceeded against before the departmental officer for confiscation as well as being prosecuted in a criminal court.

( 5 ) IT is worthwhile to note here that the Supreme Court took note of the purpose of the amendment, its object and reasons which impelled the Legislature to confer powers on the departmental officers, called in the Act as 'authorised officer' for confiscation of forest produce seized, where there was reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in addition to the provision contained in the Forest Act for prosecution of the offender before a criminal court. The objects and reasons which impel1ed the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh to enact the 1976 Amendment are not different from the objects and reasons which led to the Orissa Amendment of 1983. There was large scale illi