Non-compliance of statutory requirements, such as the mandate for inquiry into forest offences to be held by an officer not below the rank of a Range Officer as per Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980, can vitiate the entire confiscation proceeding.

JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. The petitioner is the owner of Tata Pick up Van, which was purchased in the year 2004. Before it was assigned with a registration number, the same was seized in connection with a forest offence on 19.9.2004. At the time of seizure, 106 pieces of sal planks of different size and 18 pieces of Kuruma planks of different size were seized from the vehicle. Such seizure was reported to the Assistant Conservator of Forests-cum-Authorised Officer, Cuttack Forest Division, Cuttack. The petitioner was noticed to show cause and subsequently a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Authorised Officer vide O.R.No.113 D of 2004-2005 for commission of offence under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The Authorised Officer directed confiscation of the timber as well as the vehicle vide order dated 24.6.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Cuttack vide F.A.O. No.151 of 2005 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 7.10.2005. Challenging the order of Authorised Officer as well as the order passed by the learned District Judge in appeal, this writ application has been filed.

2. From the order passed by the Authorised Officer, it appears that on 19.9.2004 after getting reliable information, S.I. of Dharmasala Police Station seized the said vehicle loaded with the aforesaid timber. Such seizure was intimated to the Range Officer, Balijora. The Forester, Chandikol was authorised by the Range Officer to measure size of timber and also to receive the seized vehicle along with timber from the police and, accordingly on 20.9.2004, the Forester, Chandikhol received the seized vehicle as well as timber from the S.I., Dharmasala Police Station. The driver of the vehicle having not been arrested, an U.D. case was booked and the R.T.O., Chandikhol was requested to intimate the address of owner of the vehicle. On 6.11.2004, the petitioner appeared before the Forester, Chandikhol along with all relevant documents and papers in support of his ownership over the vehicle. Thereafter, U.D. Case was converted to Offence Report and a confiscation proceeding was initiated before the Authorised Officer. After receipt of reply from the petitioner, evidence was collected and the Authorised Officer ultimately passed an order of confiscation holding that the said timber was being transported without any valid permit. In appeal also the said order was confirmed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed both the orders solely on the ground that Rule 4 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 having not been complied with, the entire confiscation proceeding is vitiated and, therefore, both the orders impugned in the writ application are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State referring to the evidence adduced before the Authorised Officer submitted that there has been substantial compliance of the said Rule. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the State that the said question was never raised either before the Authorised Officer or before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, is not permissible to be raised for the first time in the writ application. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the State that the aforesaid Rules are only meant to be complied with for criminal proceedings and not in a proceeding initiated before the Authorised Officer for confiscation under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

4. Undisputedly, the vehicle before it was assigned with a registration number had been seized by the police for illegal transportation of timber. The only question raised before this Court is non-compliance of Rule 4 of 1980 Rules. It is a fact that such question was never raised either before the Authorised Officer or before the Appellate Authority, but it being a question of law, the same can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Referring to the evidence adduced before the Authorised Officer