The provisions of the Central Act are not applicable to specified forest produce in respect of matters for which provisions are contained in the State Act.

SOHANI, J :-This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows:-

The petitioner carries on business at Dhamnod of transporting goods by road and is the owner of truck bearing registration No. MPO 9493. On 4th October 1982, the aforesaid truck was seized by the officers of the Forest Department on the allegation that the truck was involved in an offence under the M.P.Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act'). At that time, the truck was being driven by driver Bhuwan son of Mansingh an employee of the petitioner, and the truck was in the custody of the driver. The allegation of the Forest Officers was that 22 logs of teak wood were being unauthorisedly transported in the truck. The petitioner averred that according to the Forest Officers the driver of the truck had compounded the offence and respondent No. 3, the Divisional Forest Officer had therefore, passed an order (Annexure A) directing that Rs. 1000 be recovered by way of compensation from Bhuwan son of Mansingh for the offences under Ss.5, 11 and 13 of the State Act. It was further directed by respondent No. 3 in that order that the value of the truck which was seized and was liable to confiscation was estimated to be Rs. 70,000 and that on payment of that sum, the truck would be released under S.19 (1) (b) of the State Act. The petitioner contends that before passing the aforesaid order, the petitioner, the owner of the truck, was not hearing and the appeal against that order preferred by the petitioner before the Conservator of Forest was dismissed. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition.

3. In the return filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that on the date of the incident, 22 logs of teak wood which is a specified forest produce within the meaning of S.2 (g) (b) of the State Act, were being transported without any transit pass that the said logs did not bear any hammer mark as provided by the Transit Rules and when interrogated the driver of the truck did not produce any authority or transit pass. It was therefore, contended that as the driver of the truck had committed offences under Ss.5. 11 and 13 of the State Act, a panchnama was drawn up and the truck was seized. It was further stated that the statement of the driver was recorded on that day in which he admitted that he was illegally transporting the specified forest produce. It was further contended that on 5th Oct. 1982, the driver of the truck offered to compound the offences and he signed a Razinama agreeing to pay such compensation as would be determined by the Divisional Forest Officer. It was therefore contended that the composition of the offences under the State Act was completed and respondent No. 3 thereafter proceeded to determine the amount payable by the diver of the by way of compensation as required by S.19 (1) (a) of the State Act. It was further stated that since under the provisions of the State Act once composition was complete the property seized could be returned only on payment of the value determined under S.19 (1) (b) of the State Act; the Divisional Forest Officer hart determined the value of the truck at Rs. 70,000. It was contended that the provisions of S.55 of the Forest Act were applicable and the truck was liable to confiscation, which could be released only after payment of Rs. 70,000.

4. Shri Chaphekar learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 1 had no authority to confiscate the truck or to take any action under S.19 (1) (b) of the State Act. It was urged that by virtue of the provision of S.22 of the State Act the provisions of the Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') were not applicable in the instant case as it was undisputed that 22 logs of teak wood which were seized were specified forest produce under the State Act. Learned counsel therefore, contended that as the provisions of the