JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioner-Rabinarayan Sahu in this writ application has sought to challenge an order of confiscation dated 19.4.2007 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-District Forest Officer, Southern Division, Ghumusar, Bhanjanagar (O.P.3) as well as the judgment dated 24.9.2007 delivered by the learned District Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati, Berhampur in F.A.O. No.18 of 2007 confirming the aforesaid order of confiscation of the peti¬tioner’s Tractor bearing Registration No.OR-07-K 9335 along with a trolley bearing Registration No.OR-07-K 9336.

2. The main contention advanced by Mr. Das, learned coun¬sel appearing for the petitioner is that the confiscation pro¬ceeding as well as the appellate order stand vitiated since the statutory enquiry contemplated under Rule-4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 (in short “1980 Rules”) has not been complied with. Rule 4 of Orissa Forest (D.E.D. of F.O.) Rules, 1980 reads as follows :

“4. Enquiry - (1) When a forest offence is detected, a preliminary enquiry, may be held by a Forester in charge of the section who shall forward his enquiry report along with the report in Form No.1 to the Range Officer concerned, soon after his preliminary enquiry is completed.

Provided that no enquiry may be held by any such Officer if the accused who has committed a forest offence other than an offence under Section 66 or Section 67 of the Act agrees, and files a petition to that effect in Form No.IV to get the offence compounded under Section 72 of the Act and to pay compensation therefor. Such application in Form No.IV shall also form a part of the case record.

(2) An enquiry into the forest offence shall thereafter be held by an officer not below the rank of a Range Officer.

(3) The enquiry report together with the case record shall be submitted to the divisional Forest Officer by the Range Officer in all cases in which the Divisional Forest Officer is not competent to compound under Rule 7 and where the accused persons do not opt to compound the offence.”

3. Mr. Das, contends that in the present case when the alleged forest offence was detected, the Forester claims to have carried out a “preliminary enquiry” in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (D.E.D. of F.O.) Rules, 1980 and forwarded the enquiry report in Form No.1 to the Range Officer concerned. But the Range Officer concerned failed to carry out the statutory enquiry in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (D.E.D. of F.O.) Rules, 1980. Consequently the action taken by the Authorized Officer-cum-D.F.O. on the prelimi¬nary enquiry conducted by the Forester without conducting the “statutory enquiry” by the Range Officer, being in violation to Orissa Forest (D.E.D. of F.O.) Rules, 1980 as noted hereinabove, renders the impugned orders both, in the confiscation proceedings as well as the subsequent appeal invalid in law.

4. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tractor and trolley in question had been given on hire basis to a contractor namely, Rajendra Prasad Mohanty and it is the said contractor who had issued instructions to the driver of the vehicle to transport some wooden poles and other articles required for construction work in the said tractor by claiming that he possessed the necessary valid receipts show¬ing purchase of the poles by paying royalty to the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that those re¬ceipts were shown to the petitioner’s driver and the driver be¬lieving such receipts indicating payment of royalty to the Gov¬ernment as valid in law, acted on such bona fide impression and permitted loading of said wooden poles on his vehicle for the purpose of transportation. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver had any role in the alleged offence and since the driver who was driving the vehicle on t