------------------- Petitioner challenges the proceedings taken pursuant to Ext.P10 and seeks for a direction not to seize the machineries of the saw mill owned by the petitioner. The facts involved in the case would show that an attempt has been made by the Forest Department to seize the saw mill machineries of the petitioner on the allegation that stolen timber was cut into pieces from the saw mill of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per the preliminary investigation and reports, the timber was cut into pieces from another saw mill and thereafter, the report seems to have been filed stating that the timber was cut into pieces from the saw mill of the petitioner. The main contention urged by the petitioner is with reference to Section 52 (1) of the Kerala Forest Act, inter alia contending that the saw mill machinery of the petitioner cannot be seized by virtue of the aforesaid provisions of the said Act. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader based on Ext.P10 submits that necessary enquiry had been conducted by the Forest Department and ultimately it was found that the stolen timber was transported
W.P.C.No. 5823 OF 2014
2
to the mill of the petitioner from where it was cut into pieces. Initially, there was an error in identifying the saw mill concerned, which has now been rectified and necessary charge sheet has also been filed before the Magistrate Court as C.C No. 58/10, which is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Forest Offences), Manjeri.
2. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I do not think that this Court can go into the question as to whether the petitioner's saw mill was responsible for the cutting of stolen timber. It is a question of fact which has to be decided in appropriate proceedings, now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Forest Offences), Manjeri. The contention of the petitioner is that, the saw mill cannot be seized under Section 52(1) of the Act. This is also a matter which need not be considered at this stage, as such contention can be taken up by the petitioner while submitting necessary application before the Magistrate's Court.
3. Under such circumstances, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the proceedings taken by the Forest Department in terms of Section 52(1) of the Kerala Forest Act and accordingly reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate Court for appropriate
W.P.C.No. 5823 OF 2014
3
reliefs, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE lsn