Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM), filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order dated 01/08/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The Sessions Judge had set aside an earlier order dated 22/03/2016 passed by the Authorised Officer and Assistant Manager of FDCM, which directed confiscation of a tractor and trolley (Registration Nos. MH-34/L/926 and MH-34//2309) belonging to respondent no.1, Prakash Mallesh Cheraku. The confiscation was ordered on the ground that these vehicles were used for illegal transportation of teak wood and other cut wood obtained through illegal felling of trees in the forest of FDCM Limited, Bramhapuri. Respondent no.1 raised an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, relying on Section 61G of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which provides that any order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge hearing an appeal under Section 61D shall be final and no other court shall have jurisdiction to make any order regarding the custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of seized property. The petitioner's counsel argued that the finality clause does not bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court considered the objection and held that the finality clause under Section 61G does not oust the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be excluded by a statutory provision unless expressly or by necessary implication. The court found that Section 61G does not expressly exclude the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, and therefore the petition was maintainable. However, the petitioner's counsel subsequently sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Finality Clause - Section 61G of Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The court held that the finality clause under Section 61G does not bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted by a statutory provision unless expressly or by necessary implication. The petition was held maintainable. (Paras 4-6) B) Forest Law - Confiscation of Vehicles - Illegal Transportation of Forest Produce - Sections 61A, 61D, 61G of Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The petitioner, Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, challenged the appellate order setting aside confiscation of a tractor and trolley used for illegal transportation of teak wood. The court did not decide on merits as the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. (Paras 2, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 61D of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, in view of the finality clause contained in Section 61G of the said Act.
Final Decision
The court held that the writ petition is maintainable as the finality clause under Section 61G of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Law Points
- Finality clause under Section 61G of Indian Forest Act
- 1927 does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Maintainability of writ petition against appellate order under Section 61D of Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Confiscation of vehicles used for illegal transportation of forest produce
