Back
High Court Of Orissa
J. K. MOHANTY, K. P. MOHAPATRA
DANDAPANI ROULA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. 2639 Of 1984
Decided On : 02/05/1985
FOREST ACT - SEIZURE OF VEHICLE - CONFISCATION - BLACKLISTING - VALIDITY - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS - EQUALITY AND ABSENCE OF ARBITRARINESS AND DISCRIMINATION IN GOVERNMENT TRANSACTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's truck was seized and a notice to show cause was issued as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 56(2)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act. The petitioner challenged the seizure and the vires of certain provisions of the Act regarding confiscation and seizure of vehicles. The court released the truck on furnishing security and executing a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle before the authorized officer at the close of the confiscation proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Divisional Forest Officer had no authority to issue a letter to other Divisional Forest Officers not to engage the petitioner's truck for transportation of any forest produce till the finalization of the case, as the petitioner had not yet been found guilty. The court directed that the letter should not be given any weight and the petitioner should not be restrained in any way from carrying on his lawful business in transporting forest produce and using the forest roads for lawful purposes.
Issues: 1. Whether the Divisional Forest Officer had the authority to issue a letter to other Divisional Forest Officers not to engage the petitioner's truck for transportation of any forest produce till the finalization of the case? 2. Whether the petitioner could be restrained from carrying on his lawful business in transporting forest produce and using the forest roads for lawful purposes?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Divisional Forest Officer had no authority to issue the letter in question, as he was required to act within the bounds of the law and should not have issued the letter without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 2. The court held that the petitioner could not be restrained from carrying on his lawful business in transporting forest produce and using the forest roads for lawful purposes, as he was entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of goods from the Government.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and directed that the letter issued by the Divisional Forest Officer should not be given any weight and the petitioner should not be restrained in any way from carrying on his lawful business in transporting forest produce and using the forest roads for lawful purposes.
J. K. MOHANTY, J.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 6829. This truck is alleged to have been involved in the commission of a forest offence and a proceeding has been started against the petitioner. A notice to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated u/s. 56 (2) (a) of the Orissa Forest Act was served on him. The vehicle was also seized. The petitioner filed O. J. C. No. 604 of 1984 challenging the seizure of the truck and also the vires of certain provisions of the Act regarding confiscation and seizure of vehicles. In that writ petition, this Court passed order directing release of the truck on furnishing security of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the authorised officer with the further stipulation for executing a bond undertaking to produce the vehicle before the authorised officer at the close of the confiscation proceeding, if so required. Failure to produce the vehicle before the authorised officer as and when called upon by him would amount to contempt of the order of this Court. By virtue of the order of this Court and after complying with the terms and conditions as mentioned above, the truck has been released. The petitioner now alleges that after the truck was released, he wanted to engage the same in some forest contract works. But to his surprise, he found that a letter dt. 4-5-1984 (Annexure 1) has been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division (O. P. No. 2) to the Divisional Forest Officers of Puri, Nayagarh, Phulbani Boudh, Balliguda, Ghumsur South and Parlakhemundi Divisions requesting them not to engage the above truck for transportation of any forest produce in their divisions till the finalisation of the case and to inform the check gates under their divisions to watch the activities of the truck. This letter (Annexure 1) is purported to have been issued in pursuance of the government letter dt. 22-6-81 (Annexure 2) by which the Secretary to Government, Forest, F. and A. H. Department had informed all Collectors, Chief Conservator of Forests, Additional Chief Conservator of Forests (Kendu Leaf), all Conservators of Forests and all Divisional Forest Officers that if a truck or other mechanised vehicle is caught in connection with any forest offence, an immediate intimation should be sent to the Regional Transport Officer and Regional Transport Authority giving the registration number of the vehicle, name of the driver and his driving licence number and relevant section of the offence, etc. Along with the information, a request should be made to the R. T. O. /r. T. A. to suspend the registration number and the licence of the truck and the driver pending disposal of the case.
( 2 ) THOUGH reference to the above letter has been made in Annexure 1, no such step has been taken. The petitioner's case is that after Annexure 1 was issued to the Divisional Forest Officers, he has been prevented from carrying on any forest contract work and also is facing difficulties in transporting forest materials and other articles through forest roads. Thus, he has been prevented from carrying on lawful business even though it has not been finally adjudged that he has been involved in any forest offence. According to the petitioner, Annexure 1 amounts to blacklisting him without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
( 3 ) THE opposite parties in their counter have stated that the petitioner is involved in the commission of forest offence. The letter (Annexure-1) is merely a request to the concerned Divisional Forest Officers not to engage the truck ORU 6829. There is no impediment on the petitioner to carry on business in spite of the letter.
( 4 ) LAW is well settled that nobody should be blacklisted without giving an opportunity of being heard. An order of blacklisting a person results in civil consequences. It affects the reputation of the person blacklisted not only in his dealings with the Government but in his dealing with private f
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
