Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15065 of 2018 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).

Bisikeshan Ray …. Petitioner(s)

-versus-

State of Odisha and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sailabala Jena, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Prabhu Prasana Behera, ASC CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-26.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Authorized Officer- cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bargarh Forest Division in C.P. Case No.15 of 2015-16, and the appellate order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Bargarh in FAO No.2 of 2017, on the ground that the confiscation of the tractor bearing registration number

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 OD-17F-9326 was not supported by any finding of knowledge or intent on the part of the Petitioner or the Driver.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(i) The tractor bearing Registration No.OD-17F-9326 was seized on

12.03.2016 by the forest officials of Bargarh Forest Division. At the time of seizure, it was found transporting 92 numbers of miscellaneous forest poles illegally. The driver and two occupants of the vehicle failed to produce any valid documents authorizing such transportation.

(ii) In response to the show-cause notice issued to the concerned individuals, the petitioner Sri Bisikeshan Ray, along with others, admitted to the transportation of only 40 poles and paid a compounding fine of ₹10,000/-. However, the seizure report clearly mentions that 92 poles were being transported, indicating that an excess of 52 poles was being moved without authorization.

(iii) The petitioner claimed that the poles were collected for domestic use and that he had instructed the driver and other persons accordingly. He denied any forest offence. However, the authorities considered this denial baseless and a fabricated story intended to evade confiscation proceedings.

(iv) The amount of ₹10,000/- was collected from individuals named Debarchan Majhi, Jita Nial, and Purna Dharua of village Dudukijhari, whereas the persons actually arrested for the illegal transportation were Mahendra Bariha, Mandhar Nial, and Puran Bag. This raised suspicion

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Date: 23-Apr-2025 18:11:49 that the compounding and seizure incidents were being misrepresented to shield the actual offenders.

(v) The Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests invoked Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, and found sufficient evidence that the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence and precautions. This order of confiscation was confirmed by the District Judge, Bargarh in FAO No. 02 of 2017.

(vi) After the judicial confirmation of confiscation and in the absence of any further stay, the vehicle was put to public tender sale vide Office Memo No. 5065 dated 20.12.2018 and corrigendum dated 08.01.2019. The auction notice was published in “The Samaj” and “The Bharat Darshan.” The vehicle was ultimately sold to Sri Fakir Pradhan for ₹2,70,000/-.

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 driver of the tractor, Puran Bag, had no knowledge that he was using the vehicle to commit a forest offence. He believed in good faith that the goods were lawfully permitted for transport as the owner of the forest produce had shown him the payment receipt.

(ii) The petitioner contends that the illiteracy and lack of understanding of the driver must be taken into consideration. The driver could not distinguish whether the receipt issued by the Forester was for a