The operations conducted by the petitioner did not fall within the exemption of personal carpentry under the Odisha Saw Mill Act due to the substantial scale of machinery and timber, constituting illegal saw-milling.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the impugned confiscation orders dated 13.02.2017, 20.11.2020, and 07.02.2024, and to direct the opposite parties to release the seized machinery and timber forthwith as per law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, Sadhab Charan Behera, a resident of Ashok Nagar, Athagada, District Cuttack, is a carpenter by profession engaged in carpentry work within his house premises and nearby areas.

(ii) On 08.11.2012, the Range Officer, Athagada, along with forest officials and a Magistrate, conducted a raid at the petitioner’s residence and seized machinery and materials in connection with OR Case No. 43A of 2012-13, alleging violation of provisions under the Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991.

(iii) During the search, several machines such as cutter machines, a Kunda machine, and timber consisting of mango and teak planks measuring approximately 0.7122 cubic meters were seized.

(iv) The petitioner asserted that he was exempt under Section 25 of the Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, claiming his establishment was a small-scale carpentry unit using a 1 HP cutter machine and not a saw mill or saw pit.

(v) The opposite parties contended that the petitioner was operating an unlicensed saw mill and had failed to produce valid documents regarding licensing or lawful procurement of timber, except one sawing memo issued by Mahalaxmi Saw Mill, Dhenkanal.

(vi) The seized materials were transported to the Division Malkhana and kept under official custody following the raid. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Athagada, after inquiry, passed an order of confiscation on 13.02.2017.

(vii) The petitioner challenged the order in FAO No. 20 of 2017 before the District Judge, Cuttack, which was remanded to the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Angul, for reconsideration. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Angul, dismissed the appeal on 20.11.2020, affirming the confiscation order.

(viii) The petitioner again preferred FAO No. 7 of 2021 before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack, which was dismissed on 07.02.2024, thereby confirming the earlier orders.

(ix) The petitioner relied on the judgment in State of Odisha v. Jyotshna Mohapatra , 2018 (1) OLR 139 asserting that his activities were confined to carpentry work and thus did not constitute operation of a saw mill.

(x) The opposite parties maintained that Section 25 of the Act did not apply since the evidence indicated unlicensed saw mill operations involving electrical machinery and large timber stock.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner contends that his carpentry unit is exempt under Section 25 of the Odisha Saw Mill and Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991, as it is not a saw mill or saw pit but merely a household-level carpentry workshop using a small-scale electric cutter.

(ii) The seizure of machinery and initiation of OR Case No. 43A of 2012-13 is illegal and unsustainable, as the activity falls outside the scope of the Act.

(iii) The authorities failed to consider the statutory exemption and misapplied Sections 9 and 10 of the Cont