ORDER Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
1. The prayer of the petitioner Virendra Slngh was to quash the order dated 4.6.1993 passed by respondent No. 3 the Forest Ranger, Forest Range Laxmipur (Van Prabhag III). Mahrajganj, as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ pelition. His further prayer is to command the Respondents to release the woods which have been taken away from his possession and not to interfere in his peaceful business.
2. A persual of Annexure-3 shows that it is a seizure report submitted by Respondent No. 3 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj. Unfortunately the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been impleaded as a parly-respondent by the petitioner nor has it been stated as to what order he has passed in relation to the seizure report. Its further persual shows that the Saw machine of Virendra Slngh alias Balbeer Singh. Proprietor of Singh Saw Mill was enquired into in presence of (i) Forest Officer, North Gorakhpur, (ii) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nautanwa. (iii) Forest Officer, Laxmlpur. (iv) Circle Officer, Farenda, (v) Station House Officer. Puranderpur and other Police and Forest officials. During enquiry in the Saw mill premises, it was found that after bringing illegally round logs from the forest some of which were cut and seized along with tools used in the Saw machine and brought to the office premises by exercising the powers vested in the authority under Sections 26 and 52 of the Forest Act and Saw Mill Rules.
3. We find that the following order was passed by this Court on 8.9.1993 :
"Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time and no more to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.
List for admission on 11th October. 1993 Until further orders, the respondents are restrained from interfering in running of the Saw Mill of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to remove any wood outside the Saw Mill."
4. This writ petition was originally filed by the aforementioned Virendra Singh alias Balbeer Singh after whose death the present petitioner has been substituted.
The submissions :
5. The main thrust of the contention of Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing in support of the prayers made in this writ petition, was that no term and condition of the licence granted under the Saw Mill Rules was breached by Virendra Singh aforementioned in whose Mill the logs were only cut. From where they had come was not required to be enquired. In any event the articles of Saw Mill could not be seized. Accordingly the seizure was illegally made and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for in this writ petition.
6. Sri H. R. Mlshra, learned standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, with reference to the statements made in the counter-affidavit and its Supplementary, contended that the submissions are thoroughly misconceived, the licence of the father of the petitioner was cancelled by the Government in the year 1994 itself and even the appeal preferred against the order cancelling his licence was also dismissed in the year 1994.
Our Findings :
7. Under Section 52 of the Forest Act if a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, such produce together with all tools used in committal of any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.
8. On the allegations made in the seizure report. It is clear that the woods in question, whether in the form of round logs or cut to pieces, are forest produce. This much is clear that the Saw Mill of the petitioner was used in cutting them and they were found in its premises. Saw Mill, in our view, is a tool as envisaged under Section 52 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Shukla that it could not be seized.
9. The submission that since the father of the petitioner was having a valid licence and, therefore, it will be presumed that the logs and cut woods were valldly cut by the petitioner is devoid of any substance. Simply because the petitioner's father was having a licence, it cannot be presumed that he had a right to cut away the aforementioned forest produce.
10. The question as to whether the 'forest produce' was illegally and/or stealthily brought from the forest and/or kept in the premises of the Saw Mill is a question of fact and cannot be determined by us in this summary proceedings. The defence taken on behalf of the proprietor of the Saw Mill, if raised, is to be examined only in the pending proceedings.
11. For the reasons aforementioned, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
13. With dismissal of this writ petition, the interim order stands automatically revoked.
14. The substituted petitioner must surrender of his own the forest produce in question if he or his father has been successful in procuring them in terms of the Interim order dated 8.9.1993 and in the event of his refusal to do so, it will be open for the forest/police authorities to take appropriate action.
15. The office is directed to hand over a X-rox copy of this order to Sri H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel within two days for its intimation to and follow up action by the authorities concerned.