SURMA VALLEY SAW MILL P LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the letter dated 4-3-1997 issued by the Deputy Ranger, Sadar Beat, Karimganj, and for declaration that the action of the respondent-authorities in sealing the peeling machine of the Saw Mill of the petitioners is illegal and ultra vires, and for a direction on the respondents not to close down the mill of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner No. 1, M/s. Surma Valley Saw Mill Private Limited, is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and owns a Saw Mill which is situated at Bhanga Bazar in the Karimganj District of Assam. The said Saw Mill of the petitioner No. 1 has been leased out to the petitioner No. 2, M/s. Tea Agency and Trading Centre, which is a Partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner No. 3, Sri Govinda Das Daga, is the Manager of petitioner No. 2 firm. In the aforesaid Saw Mill, logs and timber are converted into sectional pieces which are further converted to veneer sheets and the rejected logs are sawn for its own purposes. The case of the petitioners is that they purchase logs and timber from sellers having valid transit passes and the said purchase is made at the premises of the aforesaid Saw Mill. On 4-3-1997, 5-3-1997 and 6-3-1997, one Sri. A. Purkayastha, Forester I, attached to Sadar Beat, Karimganj, seized logs/timber from the aforesaid Saw Mill of the petitioners at Bhanga Bazar and from the nearby river ghat. Thereafter, a letter dated 4-3-1997 was addressed by one Sri A. Choudhary, Deputy Ranger, Sadar Beat, Karimganj, to the Manager of the aforesaid Saw Mill asking him to stop conversion and peeling of timber/logs until verification of the timber/logs in the aforesaid Mill was completed. Then, on 6-3-1997, one officer of the Forest Department, Karimganj, came to the aforesaid Saw Mill and sealed the peeling machine by which processing work in the Mill was being carried out. In the circumstances, the petitioners submitted a petition dated 26-3-1997 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj, for release of the logs and other items of timber as well as release of the main machine of the Saw Mill sealed on 6-3-1997. But the peeling machine of the Saw Mill was not released and as a result the aforesaid Mill of the petitioners continued to be closed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioners have moved this Court for appropriate relief.

(3.) At the hearing of the Civil Rule, Ms. M. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the only power that is available to the authorities to seize the machines is under Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation and under the said Section 49 as amended by the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1995, the machinery which are used in the commission of a forest offence can be seized by any Forest Officer. According to Ms. Hazarika, only the machinery which are used for cutting or felling tree or timber and other such illegal activities inside the forest can be seized under the said amended Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation, but the machniery comprised in a Saw Mill located outside the forest area cannot be seized under the said amended Section 49 of the Assam Forest Regulation (for short, 'the Regulation). In support of this contention, Ms. Hazarika, referred to the provisions of Section 25 of the Regulation, and submitted that the said section prohibits some acts in the reserved forest. She argued that clause (d) of Section 25 prohibits a person from cutting any tree or injuring by fire or otherwise in a reserved forest and hence cutting any tree in the premises of the Saw Mill locatedoutside the reserved forest would not amount to a forest offence. According to Ms. Hazarika, therefore, the machinery of the Saw Mill located outside the reserved forest cannot be held to have been used in the commission of a forest offence and, therefore, cannot be seized under the amended Section 49 of the Regulation. In support of her aforesaid submission, she cited a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kamleshkumar Chhabra v. State, AIR 1985 Madh Pra 130, in which it has been held that only property in respect of which an offence is committed can be seized under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.