S.B.SINHA, J - (1.) Although the appeal was initially directed against an order dated 12-9-96 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, keeping in view the subsequent event, which had been taken note of by another Division Bench, before us now the validity or otherwise of the order dated 13-1-97 has fallen for consideration.
(2.) The appellant allegedly purchased 118 sal logs, which bore "passing hammer mark" and "sale hammer mark", in Assam and brought the same in West Bengal. All original documents in relation to the said articles were said to have been deposited with the Range Officer, Moraghat Range for the purpose of obtaining transit pass. However, the logs were seized on 22-2-96 On or about 20th February, 1996, a notice was issued by the Beat Officer, Khuntimary, directing the appellant to show cause as to why the said logs had been brought without any hammer mark and valid document. The said notice reads thus:-"Whereas a search conducted by the undersigned at the premises located at B. B. Chatterjee Sarani of Gairkata on 20-2-96 the forest produce of the following description without containing any Government hammer mark has been traced out to be stored in the said premises without any supporting document to prove their origin.You are hereby called upon to produce to the undersigned within 30 days from the date of issue of this notice, the full details of the origin of such seized forest produce along with all available documents in support of the actual origin of the seized produce.On your failure to produce the required documents in support of the origin of the produce seized from your premises within the period specified here-in-above the undersigned shall be lawfully bound to initiate legal proceeding against you under Rule 11(1) of the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1959 made in conformity with provisions of (sections) 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.1. Details of the seized produce furnished in the attached listGreen sal logs -118 nos. ref. 118.166 measurement given in seizure list2 Fascimile of the seizure hammer T.M.N.B. Page No. 176-184/643 of 20-2-1996".'
(3.) The writ application was filed by the writ petitioner inter alia, questioning the jurisdiction of a Beat Officer to issue the said notice. The learned Trial Judge by reason of an order dated 12-9-96 upon taking into consideration the grievances of the petitioner, directed him to raise all contentions before the Forest Beat Officer. The learned Trial Judge further directed :"The petitioner will be informed of the date, so fixed, and on the date fixed the petitioner will be at liberty to produce before the Forest Beat Officer all documents in support of his claim to the seized timber and on consideration of all relevant documents, papers and materials and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and such other person/persons as may be considered necessary by him, the said Forest Beat Officer will take a decision in the matter and record the decision in writing supported by reasons within one week from the date of hearing and shall communicate the same to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that in the event the Forest Beat Officer is satisfied about the legitimacy of the claim of the petitioner, he will release the seized timber in favour of the petitioner, otherwise necessary action in accordance with law shall be promptly taken. The Forest Beat Officer will be also entitled to hear such other person/persons, as may be considered necessary by him, in the matter. The petitioner will be at liberty to represent his case himself or through his authorised agent."Thereafter the petitioner-appellant preferred this appeal. The appellant also filed his show cause. During the pendency of this appeal, another notice dated 28-8-96 was received by the appellant on 13-9-96 purported to be in terms of Rules 41 and 42 of the West Bengal Forest Produce Rules, 1959. The said notice was issued, inter alia, on the ground that the appellant had brought the said timber without any authority. The said notices are contained in Annexures "M" and "N" to the stay application. The appellant thereafter filed another application. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by V. N. Khare, C.J. (as his Lordship then was) by an order dated 14-11-96, directed -"It appears that the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of timber by the respondents. It further appears that after filing the writ petition the respondents issued a notice dated 28th August, 1996 whereby the appellant was asked to show cause why the seized timber may not be confiscated under S. 59A(3) of the Indian Forest Act.After we heard the matter we feel, it will be proper if the appellant may be required to file objection to the notice dated 28th August, 1996 In case such objection is filed within three weeks from today, the Authorised Officer shall complete the confiscation proceeding within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such objection. In the meantime the respondents may also file affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed by the appellant.Let the application come up in the list after two months.";