Section 52(4)(b) of the Forest Act requires that notice be issued to the person from whom the property was seized and to any other person who may appear to have some interest in the property before a confiscation order can be passed.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of S. 52 of the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983 and also challenges the order of confiscation passed by respondent No. 2 on 7-1-1987.

( 2 ) AT the very inception of the argument, Shri Dabir submitted that he seeks to withdraw the challenge thrown to the constitutional validity of S. 52 of the Indian Forest (M. P. Amendment) Act, 1983.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner was that he is the owner of the Truck No. M. P. No. 5928, the said truck was in custody and possession of the driver Gokul Prasad who was required under the transit permit to transport certain forest wood from one place to another. In a raid effected on 4-12-1986 the Forest Ranger found the truck carrying some different fresh sawn forest produce and not the one under the permit or transit pass. The Truck was seized, Forest offence was registered and notice was sent to the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Notices regarding confiscation proceedings were issued to four persons but no notice was issued to the present petitioner.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing parties the competent authority ordered confiscation of the wood and also of the said truck.

( 5 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the order Annexure C dt. 7-1-1987 has been passed without hearing him although he was entitled to a notice being a person interested in the property i. e. , the truck. It is submitted by him that the order passed without hearing the owner of the property is patently contrary to law and is liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) ON being asked as to why the said order Annexure C was not challenged in an appeal u/s. 52 (A) of the Forest Act (as amended in M. P.) Shri Dabir submitted that various petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the M. P. Forest Act, therefore he also challenged the validity of the Act and order of confiscation.

( 7 ) THE Return of the State states that the truck was loaded with fresh sawn timber which was not permitted under the transit pass. According to the Return, the driver had informed the Forest Authority that one Sharda Pandit was managing the affairs in relation to the truck, therefore, notices were issued to the driver Gokul Prasad and Sharda Pandit, the persons who held the transit pass and the person from whom wood was received. According to the return, the respondent did not know that the petitioner was the owner of the truck, therefore, the notice was not issued to the petitioner but, however, according to them, notice to Gokul Prasad who was the driver and agent of the petitioner was sufficient notice to the petitioner.

( 8 ) SHRI Dabir learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-issuance of the notice to the petitioner vitiated the order and the same is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Gupta learned counsel for the State states that the Authorities are required to issue notice if it appeared to the Forest Officer that the person has some interest in the property.

( 9 ) SECTION 52 of the Forest Act as applicable to Madhya Pradesh provides the complete procedure in relation to seizure and confiscation of the property involved in forest offence or illegal transportation of the wood. Sub-section (4) of the S. 52 provides that no order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-sec. (3) unless the authorised officer issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person, who may, appear to the authorised officer to, have some interest in such property. The Authorised Officer, according to language of sub-sec. (b) is obliged to issue notice to the person from whom the property is seized and duty bound to issue notice to the person who has interest in the property.

( 10 ) THE submission of the learned Government Advocate that as they did not know that the petitioner was the owner, therefore, they were not required to