Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
CHACKO BABY – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER – Respondent
C.R.P. NO.151 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH, SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN, SHRI.ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO, SHRI.AJITH SUNNY
For the Respondents: Special Government Pleader
The indirect communication of a legal order through affidavits constitutes valid notice under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, justifying the court's dismissal of the delayed appeal.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Forest Act, 1962 - Section 61D - Delay in filing an appeal - The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation of timber, claiming lack of communication of the order - The court found that the order was indirectly communicated to the petitioner through a counter-affidavit - The delay of 4894 days was not satisfactorily explained - Revision petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 8, 10)
(B) Communication of Orders - The court emphasized that the indirect knowledge via affidavits constitutes proper communication under the provisions of the Act. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, running a small-scale furniture workshop and sawmill, contested a confiscation order claiming it was not communicated to him in a timely manner, resulting in an appeal filed 13 years later.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner had adequate knowledge of the confiscation order, which was communicated indirectly through legal filings.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the order was communicated as per Section 61D and whether the appeal merited reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that even without direct communication, the affidavit exchanges provided sufficient notice to the petitioner about the confiscation order.
Result: Revision petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the dismissal of appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. confiscation order's communication and resulting appeal process. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding communication of the order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the indirect communication and knowledge. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
(Dated: 11th June, 2025)
This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 8.4.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in C.M.A No.87 of 2024 of the District Court, Ernakulam, dismissing on the ground of delay.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and special government pleader for the forest/respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running the business/a small-scale furniture workshop and sawmill. The 2nd respondent, then in office, collected semi- finished imported Burma Teak and other wood pieces from the workshop of the revision petitioner without preparing a mahazar. Subsequently, the license has been cancelled by the authorized officer, and the writ petitioner filed a writ petition before this court and also a Writ Appeal No.853 of 2011, which is pending. Meanwhile, there was an order for the confiscation of the properties by the BCN/the authorized officer of the forest. He confiscated the property in 2007. The same was challenged before the District Judge, which was dismissed; thereafter, a revision was filed before this court, and this court set aside the order and remitted it back for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the respondent is said to have passed a confiscation order on 30.06.2011, but the order has not been communicated, and the petitioner is running the business continuously by obtaining the interim order of stay of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.853 of 2011. He then came to the Division Bench of this court for the final hearing, and it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that a confiscation order had been passed by the DFO on 30th June, 2011. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Judge, and along with this appeal, an interlocutory application was also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 4894 days in filing the appeal. The 1st appellate court dismissed the application and transferred the case of the petitioner to this court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that there is a clear violation of Section 61 B of the Kerala Forest Act , where the confiscation order was passed by the authorized officer on 30th June 2011, but the same was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was required to file an appeal within 30 days from the date of communication, but the order was not at all communicated, and he came to know one week before the matter came up before the Division Bench of this court; therefore, he prayed for condonation of delay of 4894 days in filing the appeal. He also contended that there is no delay in filing the appeal, that the order was not at all communicated, and that there is a slight variation in Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act , 1962. The trial court, without considering the aspect, wrongly dismissed the application and allowed the petitioner to contest the appeal before the District Court.
5. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that there is an inordinate delay of more than 13 years in filing the appeal before the District Judge. Though there is no document from the respondent in the order dated 30.06.2011, that has actually been communicated to the petitioner, it is contended, in the writ appeal before the Division Bench, that the respondent filed a counter-affidavit on 29.9.2011. Wherein, the respondents categorically stated that the 3rd respondent passed the confiscating order on 30.6.2011.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader also submits that on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, once again, the petitioner filed an affidavit on 11.10.2011, stat
