HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.21820 of 2014 Date : 14-10-2014 Between :
M/s. Inland World Logistics, Formerly known as M/s. Inland Road Transport Pvt. Ltd., represented by their authorised representative B. Narsing Rao, Kolkata ..
Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Damodar Mundra Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Forests (AP) The Court made the following :
ORDER:
At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in transport business. It is its pleaded case that it has received various items of goods from various customers under 12 consignment notes which are as under :
It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the consignment was loaded at Nelamangala, Bangalore to the destination at Delhi. That in the normal course, the consignment should have reached Delhi by 4-5-2014, but the same has not reached and the petitioner came to know that the truck was seized by the Forest officials, Kuppam on 30-4-2014 and a case was registered by the Forest Range Officer, Kuppam on the ground that Red Sander logs were found in the truck along with the goods entrusted by the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that it has nothing to do with the Red Sander logs found in the truck which was engaged by them only for part consignment by paying 50% of hire charges of Rs.36,900/-; that the petitioner has entrusted 12 items of goods to the driver of the truck through the broker; and that the petitioner has no knowledge about the Red Sander logs in the truck in which they have loaded the scheduled goods. The petitioner further pleaded that it has filed an application in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuppam vide Crl.M.P.No.677/2014 and the same was not entertained as the goods were not in the custody of the said Court and that in Crl.P.No.6182/2014 this Court passed order on 2- 6-2014 directing respondent No.2 to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner for release of the goods. By order dated 22-7-2014 impugned in the writ petition, respondent No.2 has directed release of 12 items of goods subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.35 lakhs representing the value of the goods. Feeling aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
By a detailed order passed on 4-8-2014, this Court directed release of goods claimed by the petitioner without any condition as they do not answer the description of ‘forest produce’. Instead of releasing the goods, respondent No.2 has filed WVMP No.2556 of 2014 seeking vacation of the interim order. In the counter-affidavit filed in support of the said application, respondent No.2 averred that as the vehicle was found involved in transportation of Red Sander logs along with the goods, the same were seized by the Forest officials; that the vehicle driver absconded from the vehicle on seeing the Forest officials; that as the case is under investigation, it cannot be presumed at this juncture that the broker or the owner of the vehicle or the officials of the petitioner-company have no complicity and that they are innocents. It is further stated that there are several instances where transportation of Red Sanders is being done under the cover of saleable and transportable goods by hiding the logs and that several smugglers are adopting various modes of transportation surprising the investigating agencies and that the fact whether the goods in question were used for hiding the transportation of Red Sander logs or not has to be concluded in the investigation. It is further averred that the petitioner has voluntarily offered bank guarantee to the tune of 50% of the value of the goods seized.
I have heard Sri Damodar Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests (AP) and perused the record.
Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act 1967 (for short "the Act") empowers any forest officer or police officer authorised in this behalf who has reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce to seize such timber or forest produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence. Under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44, such forest produce together with tools etc., used in the commission of such offence are liable to be confiscated. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the goods claimed by the petitioner and referred to above fall within the provisions of Section 44(1) and sub-section (2-A) thereof. The learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that these goods do not answer the description of ‘any timber or forest produce’. He has however submitted that since the Red Sander logs were covered with the goods claimed by the petitioner, they may answer the description of ‘tools’.
I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission. The Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus and Word Power Guide, Indian Edition 2007, defined the word ‘tool’ as :
Noun: 1. a device or implement used to carry out a particular function. 2. a thing used to help perform a job. 3. a person used by another.
In etymological, legal and also common parlance, a tool has a specific connotation. In the context of sub-sections (1) and (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, it must mean ‘an instrument or a device which is used for cutting and transporting timber or forest produce such as saws, sickles, axes, chains etc.’ By no stretch of imagination, the goods under which timber is hidden can be termed as ‘tools’ in the context in which the said word is used in the above mentioned statutory provision.
I n Om Logistics Ltd. Vs. The Divisional Forest Officer,
[1]
Adilabad this Court held that by no stretch of imagination, automobile parts can be treated as contraband falling under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act.
With regard to the plea raised in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner himself has offered to furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the goods, the petitioner has specifically averred that the goods belong to various customers; that the petitioner being a reputed transporter and as pressure is being built upon it from the customers for delivery of goods entrusted to it, it has given letter dated 17-7-2014 to respondent No.2 informing its readiness to produce bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the goods.
The law is well settled that there can be no estoppel against a statute. If the goods of the petitioner are not liable for seizure or confiscation, some undertaking given by the petitioner contrary to law cannot be put against it. At any rate, respondent No.2 has not accepted the request of the petitioner of furnishing bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the goods. On the contrary, respondent No.2 has ignored the said offer of the petitioner and has directed it to furnish bank guarantee for the entire value of the goods. Therefore, the petitioner’s offer to furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the value of the goods cannot be put against it in the light of the legal position enunciated hereinbefore.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to respondent No.2 to release the 12 items of goods claimed by the petitioner without the petitioner being liable to furnish any security.
As regards the seized vehicle and the Red Sander logs, respondent No.2 shall be free to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders under Section 44(2-A) of the Act.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WVMP No.2556 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 14-10-2014 L.R. copies AM
[1] 2007 Crl.L.J. 953 (NOC) A.P. (W.P.No.5435 of 2007, dt.16-3-2007)