Key procedural rights under the Kerala Forest Act must be upheld, meaning the accused must be afforded a hearing before confiscation can be validated.

ORDER

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2021 The revision petitioner is the appellant in CMA No.1 of 2016 of the Additional District Court-II, Kalpetta. The essential facts are as under;

The revision petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Bolero Camper, 2011 Model vehicle bearing registration No.KL 12 F 4826 taxi vehicle. The vehicle was seized by forest officials on 03.08.2012, alleging illegal transportation of Anjili wood from the forest area. After seizure, confiscation proceedings was initiated and by order dated 31.07.2013, the vehicle was confiscated to the Government. The order was set aside by the District Court in the appeal filed by the petitioner and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Again, by order No.G2-6378/12 dated 30.11.2015, the Divisional Forest Officer directed confiscation of the vehicle and this time, the confiscation order was affirmed in revision vide order No.A5.10148/2015 (K.Dis) dated 16.01.2016. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the aforementioned orders and the appellate court, after elaborate consideration, refused to interfere with the impugned orders. Aggrieved, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Adv.Alex M. Scaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forest Officer who had passed the order of confiscation is not an authorised officer under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act . It is contended that even after the first order of confiscation being set aside by the District Court, finding that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for personal hearing, the Divisional Forest Officer examined certain witnesses cited by the petitioner and reiterated the original order, without affording an opportunity for personal hearing. The order was so passed, subject to the decision of the Chief Conservator of Forest, thereby making it clear that there was no independent exercise of discretion by the Divisional Forest Officer. The revisional order is assailed on the ground that it is not a speaking order and is bad for non-application of mind. It is alleged that the Divisional Forest Officer had forwarded his order along with records to the revisional authority, contrary to the stipulation Section 61C , that the revision authority should suo motu call for the records of the order passed by the notified authority within thirty days and hear the affected person before passing any adverse order. Even though appellate court found the procedure followed by the revisional authority to be faulty, the order was upheld, treating it as an administrative order passed by the higher authority having no independent existence, thereby warranting no interference.

3. Refuting the contentions, Adv.T.P.Sajan, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, who is an authorised officer under Section 61A , had passed the confiscation order in strict compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 61B of the Kerala Forest Act . It is submitted that the authorised officer had issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 27.02.2013 and afforded the petitioner an opportunity to submit a written statement and after remand, even the witnesses cited by the petitioner were examined. Referring to Section 61C , it is contended that the revisional order was passed after verifying the confiscation order and since, no order prejudicial to the petitioner was passed by the revisional authority, there was no necessity to hear the petitioner.

4. Section 61A , 61B and 61C of the Forest Act, which are contextually relevant, are extracted here under;

“61A Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of timber, charcoal, firewood or ivory which is the property of the Government, the officer seizing the property under sub- section (1) of Section 52 shall, without any unreasonable delay, p