AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The issue raised in this writ petition is regarding the steps taken by the Respondents for disposal of Mahindra Jeep
bearing Regn. No. KL-06-B 8331. Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the said vehicle. According to the Petitioner, on 22/1/2010, the
forest officials of the Udumal Petta Forest Range seized the vehicle and Ext.P2 is the mahazar. It is stated that proceedings u/s 61B of the Forest
Act are pending and meanwhile he came to know that Respondents have initiated steps for disposal of the vehicle. This writ petition was filed at
that stage contending that since confiscation proceedings are still not pending, proceedings for the disposal of the vehicle are premature and
therefore should not be proceeded at.
Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that the vehicle originally belonged to one Shibu. It is stated
that OR No. 21/05 of the Kandalloor Forestation was booked in respect of the vehicle for transportation of illicit sandal wood timber. It is stated
that, while so, the previous owner approached this Court and filed WP(C) No. 31447/06, and that, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court,
he was given interim custody of the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle and also furnishing a bond not to alienate or
encumber the vehicle until the proceedings are pending. It is stated that, while proceedings were pending against the vehicle, the vehicle appears to
have been sold to the Petitioner.
It is stated that, subsequently after transfer in favour of the Petitioner, again the vehicle was seized by the Udumal Petta Forest Range on
22/1/10 when Sri. Shibu himself was driving the vehicle. On seizure of the vehicle, nobody approached Forest Department for interim custody of
the vehicle, and that, it was therefore that in view of the orders passed by this Court in MACA 1458/06 and the circular dated 5th of January,
2009 issued by the Home (G) Department, Government of Kerala that steps were taken for disposal of the vehicle. It is therefore contended that
the Respondents cannot be faulted for the steps they have taken.
It is true that proceedings following the seizure of the vehicle on 22/1/2010 are remaining inconclusive even as on date. Therefore, until an order
adverse to the Petitioner is passed, the vehicle belongs to the Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner is justified in contending that the steps taken for
auctioning of the vehicle are premature. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, in respect of the seizure of the
vehicle, pursuant to which OR No. 21/05 was registered against the Petitioner, the confiscation order has already been passed.Therefore, if that
order has become final or if no order staying the order has been passed by any appellate or revisional authorities, Respondents are perfectly at
liberty to either proceed against the vehicle or to realise its value from out of the bank guarantee furnished. Such proceedings if initiated by the
Respondents cannot be resisted by the Petitioner.
Therefore, while I accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since confiscation proceedings pursuant to the seizure of
the vehicle on 22/1/2010 is remaining inconclusive, and therefore, the steps taken for disposal of the vehicle is premature, I give liberty to the
Respondents to proceed for disposal of the vehicle or to realise its value if the order of confiscation passed in pursuant to the OR No. 21/05 has
become final.
Write petition is disposed of with the above clarification.