wp 16 of 2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2024

Mahendra Dharmaji Papal,

Age 40 years, Occu – Agriculture,

R/o Near Khadda Garuage,

Mangalwar Peth, Dist. Pune -

411 011 ...Petitioner

versus

1.State of Maharashtra

Through Authorized Officer and

Assistant Conservator of Forest, Pune.

2.Forest Range Officer,

Indapur, Indapur Division, Pune. … Respondents

Mr. Pranav H. Bhoite with Mr. Pratik Dalimbe, for Petitioner.

Smt. R.S.Tendulkar, APP for State.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

RESERVED ON : 16 APRIL 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 8 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the

learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2.By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 15 September 2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Criminal

Appeal No.27 of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against

SSP 1/20 2026:BHC-AS:22912

wp 16 of 2024.doc

an order dated 1 December 2022 passed by the Authorized Officer and

Assistant Conservator of Forest under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act,

1972 (the Act, 1927), in its application to the State of Maharashtra, came to

be dismissed by affirming the said order passed by the Authorized Officer and

Assistant Conservator of Forest.

3.The background facts leading to this Petition can be summerized as

under :

3.1On 5 August 2022, while the Range Forest Officer, Indapur, and the

other forest officials were on patrolling duty, a vehicle of TATA 909 make,

bearing Registration No.MH-12/EF-8956 was found moving in suspicious

circumstances. The team of forest officials intercepted the said vehicle.

Taking advantage of the darkness, the driver of the said vehicle made good

his escape, abandoning the vehicle.

3.2Upon search of the said vehicle, it transpired that it was laden with 60

bags containing Charcoal, a forest produce. The Range Forest Officer

submitted a report to the Authorized Officer. On the basis of the said Report,

a forest crime was registered at C.R.No.1/22-2023 against unidentified person

for the offence punishable under Sections 42(2) read with Section 41(1) of the

Act, 1927. The said vehicle and Charcoal – a forest produce, were also

seized.

3.3The Range Forest Officer submitted a report to the Authorized Officer.

SSP 2/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

On the basis of the said report, the Authorized Officer initiated confiscation

proceeding under Section 61-A of the Act, 1927, in its application to the State

of Maharashtra. After providing an efficacious opportunity of hearing to the

Petitioner, whose name was disclosed as the registered owner of the said

vehicle, pursuant to the information furnished by the RTO and Shivaji Mete, to

whom the Petitioner claimed to have delivered the vehicle by executing a

document, a fortnight prior to the incident in question, the Authorized Officer

was persuaded to pass an order of confiscation of the said vehicle and the

forest produce under Section 61-A (3) and (4) of the Act, 1927. The

Authorized Officer, inter alia, recorded that the forest produce was found

being transported in the said vehicle without any valid permit.

3.4Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of

Session under Section 61-D of the Act, 1927. The learned Sessions Judge,

after appraisal of the legality and correctness of the confiscation order passed

by the Authorized Officer, in the light of the material on record and the

contentions of the parties, found no reason to interfere with the confiscation

order passed by the Authorized Officer.

3.5Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

4.The impugned orders are sought to be assailed on multifold grounds.

5.An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 in

support of the impugned order.

SSP 3/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

6.In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and the material on record, I have

heard Mr. Bhoite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and, Smt. Tendulkar,

learned APP for the Respondent – State, at some length.

7.Mr. Bhoite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, took a slew of exceptions

to the impugned order as well as the order of confiscation passed by the

Authorized Officer. Firstly, it was submitted that the Petitioner was not

provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing, and, thus, the confiscation

order having been passed in violation of fundamental principles of natural

justice and judicial process, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8.Secondly, the order of confiscation suffers from the fundamental legal

flaw as under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, 1927, a conviction of a

person for the forest offence is a condition precedent for the confiscation of

the vehicle which was used in the commission of any forest offence. Thirdly,

Mr. Bhoite would urge, the alleged forest offence was not committed on any

government property. For that reason also, according to Mr. Bhoite, Section

55 of the Act, 1927 has no application at all to the facts of the case. Support

was sought to be drawn from the provisions contained in Section 52 of the

Act, 1927. Lastly, it was urged that the learned Sessions Judge was unduly

swayed by the presumption incorporated in Section 69 of the Act, 1927 and

that vitiated the finding of the learned Sessions Judge.

9.In opposition to this, Smt. Tendulkar, learned APP submitted that it was

SSP 4/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

an open and shut case of transportation of the Charcoal, a forest-produce,

in breach of the rules which warrant a pass for such transportation. There is a

material of sterling quality, which shows that upon being intercepted, the

unidentified driver of the vehicle abandoned the vehicle and the search of the

said vehicle revealed that Charcoal was being illegally transported. Once the

factum of illegal transportation of forest-produce is established and there is

nothing to show that the owner of the vehicle or any other person who was

transporting the said forest-produce had a valid pass, the order of confiscation

cannot be faulted at, urged Smt. Tendulkar.

10.To start with the legislative regime which governs the use,

transportation and sale of forest-produce. The Indian Forest Act, 1927 was

enacted to consolidate the law relating to forest, the transit of forest-produce

and the duty leviable on timber and other forest- produce. Under Section 2(4)

“forest-produce” includes —

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest

or not, that is to say, —

timber, charcoal caoutchouc, catechu,wood-oil, resin,

natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua sees, kuth and

myrabolams, and

… … ...

11.“Forest-offence” has been defined in Section 2(3) to mean an offence

punishable under the Forest Act, 1927 or under any rule made thereunder.

SSP 5/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

12.In the context of the controversy at hand, the provisions contained in

Chapter VII of the Forest Act, 1927, under the caption, “Of The Control Of

Timber And Other Forest-Produce in Transit” deserve to be noted. Chapter VII

subsumes the provisions contained in Sections 41 to 44 of the Act.

13.Section 41 (1) vests the control of all timber and other forest-produce in

transit by land or water, in the State Government. It also empowers the State

Government to make rules to regulate the transit of all timber and other forest-

produce. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 41, the rules may prescribe, the

routes by which alone timber or other forest-produce may be imported,

exported or moved into, from or within the State; prohibit the import or export

or moving of such timber or other produce without a pass from an officer duly

authorized to issue the same, or otherwise than in accordance with the

conditions of such pass; and provide for the issue, production and return of

such passes and for the payment of fees therefor.

14.Under Section 42, the State Government is empowered to prescribe

penalties for the contravention of the rules, which may extend to one year or

with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees (Maharashtra

Amendment). In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 26, 32, 41, 42,

51 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and in supersession of the Bombay

Forest Rules, 1942, and the analogous Rules, the Government of

Maharashtra has framed the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014. Chapter VII of

SSP 6/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014 under the caption “Transit of Forest

Produce” makes the provision for the transit of Forest produce. Rule 31

provides that no forest-produce shall be moved into or from or within any

District of the State except as provided in the Rules, without a pass from

some officer or person duly authorized by or under these rules to issue such

pass, or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of such pass or by

any route or to any destination other than the route or destination specified in

such pass. Proviso to rule 31(1) enumerates the situation in which no such

pass shall be required. (The case at hand is not covered by any of those

situations).

15.Rule 32 enumerates the designation of the officers who have the power

to issue passes under those rules. Rule 33 specifies what the passes issued

under the said rules, shall contain, including (a) the name of the person to

whom such pass is granted; (b) the quantity and description of forest-produce

covered by it; (d) the places from and to which such forest-produce is to be

conveyed; (e) the route by which such forest-produce is to be conveyed; and

(f) the period of time for which the pass is to be in force.

16.Rule 82 of the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014, prescribes penalty for

the breach of certain rules, including Rule 31, which proscribes the transit of

forest-produce without a valid pass i.e. imprisonment which may extend to

one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

SSP 7/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

17.Chapter IX of the Forest Act, 1927 deals with penalties and procedure.

Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927, empowers the Forest Officer or Police

Officer to seize forest-produce together with all tools, boats, vehicle or cattle,

if there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in

respect of any forest-produce. Section 55 of the Forest Act, 1927, provides

that all timber or forest-produce which is not the property of Government and

in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools, boats,

vehicles and cattle used for committing any forest-offence, shall be liable to

confiscation. Sub-Section (2) of Section 55 provides that such confiscation

may be in addition to any other punishment prescribed for such offence.

18.By Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985, after Section 61 of the Forest Act, 1927,

Section 61-A to 61-G came to be inserted, in its application to the State of

Maharashtra, prescribing a mechanism for confiscation proceedings before

the authorised officer.

19.Section 61-A prescribes for confiscation by Forest Officers of forest-

produce when forest-offence is believed to have been committed. Section 62-

B prescribes procedure before confiscation under Section 61-A.. The principle

of opportunity of hearing to the affected person is embedded in the said

procedure. Section 61-C provides for a remedy of Revision before the

Conservator of Forest against an order passed by the Authorised Officer

under Section 61-A. Section 61-D, under which the impugned order came to

SSP 8/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

be passed, provides an Appeal to the jurisdictional Sessions Judge against an

order passed under Section 61-A or Section 61-C. Section 61-E clarifies that

confiscation of the forest-produce or vehicle etc, under Sections 61-A, 61-C or

61-D does not save the offender from any other punishment which may be

imposed upon him under the said Act or any other law. Section 61-F

stipulates that after the order of confiscation becomes final, the property so

confiscated vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances.

Section 61-G bars jurisdiction of other Courts and Authorities with regard to

the custody, possession, delivery, disposal of the property seized under the

forgoing provisions.

20.The provisions contained in Section 69 also deserve to be noted :

“69. Presumption that forest-produce belongs to

Government.— When in any proceedings taken under this Act,

or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question

arises as to whether any forest-produce is the property of the

Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the

property of the Government until the contrary is proved.”

21.Section 69 enacts a presumption that the forest produce belongs to the

Government until the contrary is proved. It provides that when in any

proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under

this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest-produce is the property of

SSP 9/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

the Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the

Government until the contrary is proved.

22.In the context of the controversy at hand in regard to the confiscation of

the vehicle, the provisions contained in Section 61-B (2) are of material

significance. It reads as under :

“61-BIssue of show cause notice before confiscation under

Section 61-A.—(1) No order confiscating tools, boats, vehicles or

cattle shall be made under Section 61-A except after notice in

writing to the person from whom it is seized and considering his

objections, if any:

Provided that no order confiscating a motor vehicle shall

be made except after giving notice in writing to the registered

owner thereof, if in the opinion of the authorised officer it is

practicable to do so, and considering his objections, if any.

(2)Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section

(1), no order confiscating any tool, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be

made under Section 61-A if the owner of the tool, boat, vehicle or

cattle proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it

was used in carrying the timber, sandalwood, firewood, charcoal

or any other notified forest-produce without the knowledge or

connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the

person in charge of the tool, boat, vehicle or cattle and that each

of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions

against such use.

… … ...”

23.If the provisions contained in the Forest Act, 1927, in its application to

the State of Maharashtra, and the rules framed by the State Government

SSP 10/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

thereunder are considered in juxtaposition with each other, the anxiety of the

legislature in providing a strict mechanism for the use and transit of forest-

produce with a view to conserve the forest and arrest de-forestation so as to

avoid disastrous consequences of ecological imbalance and environmental

de-gradation becomes abundantly clear. The legislature has thus made

provisions for the transit of the forest-produce in strict conformity with the

rules. The power to confiscate the forest-produce and the vehicles was

considered a necessary deterrent to prevent the exploitation and de-gradation

of the forest. Thus, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, the legislative

object in inserting these stringent measures deserves to be kept in view.

24.In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors Vs Sujit Kumar Rana,

1

the Supreme Court enunciated that the statutes which provide for protection

of forest to maintain ecological balance should receive liberal construction at

the hands of the superior Courts. It was in terms observed that the provisions

for confiscation have been made as a deterrent object so that felling of trees

and deforestation is not made. The observations in paragraph 19 and 20 of

the said judgment are material and hence extracted below :

"19. The provisions of law referred to hereinbefore leave no

manner of doubt that upon seizure of forest produce, timber or

vehicles etc. the concerned authority has an option to report

the factum of such seizure both to the concerned Magistrate as

1 AIR 2004 SC 1851.

SSP 11/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

also the authorized officer, save and except in the cases which

would fall within the purview of the proviso appended to sub-

section (2) of Section 52 of the Act, as amended by the State

of West Bengal. The report in relation to such seizure is

required to be made either for (1) confiscation of the seized

property; (2) prosecution of the offender; or (3) for both.

20. The legislature has inserted the aforementioned

provisions with a laudable object. Forest is a national wealth

which is required to be preserved. In most of the cases, the

State is the owner of the forests and forest produce. Depletion

of forests would lead to ecological imbalance. It is now well-

settled that the State is enjoined with a duty to preserve the

forest so as to maintain ecological balance and, thus, with a

view to achieve the said object forest must be given due

protection. Statutes which provide for protection of forest to

maintain ecological balance should receive liberal construction

at the hands of the superior Courts. Interpretive exercise of

such power should be in consonance with the provisions of

such statutes not only having regard to the principle of

purposive construction so as to give effect to the aim and

object of the legislature; keeping the principles contained in

Articles 48-A and 51-A (g) of the Constitution of India in mind.

The provisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrent

object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made."

25. Following the aforesaid pronouncement, in the case of Mohd Ashique

Vs State of Maharashtra,

2

wherein the provisions dealing with confiscation

proceedings (Sections 61-A to 61-G), fell for consideration, the Supreme

2 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 251 (S.C.)

SSP 12/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

Court reieterated that the purpose behind enacting these provisions in the

Forest Act, 1927, cannot be ignored or allowed to be defeated.

26.In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Uday Singh,

3

in the

context of the provisions of Forest Act, 1927, as amendmed by the MP Act 25

of 1983, the Supreme Court made following pertinent observations :

“27. The Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian

Forest Act 1927 are infused with a salutary public purpose.

Protection of forests against depredation is a constitutionally

mandated goal exemplified by Article 48A of the Directive

Principles and the Fundamental Duty of every citizen

incorporated in Article 51A (g). By isolating the confiscation of

forest produce and the instruments utilised for the

commission of an offence from criminal trials, the legislature

intended to ensure that confiscation is an effective deterrent.

The absence of effective deterrence was considered by the

Legislature to be a deficiency in the legal regime. The state

amendment has sought to overcome that deficiency by

imposing stringent deterrents against activities which threaten

the pristine existence of forests in Madhya Pradesh. As an

effective tool for protecting and preserving environment,

these provisions must receive a purposive interpretation.

For, it is only when the interpretation of law keeps pace

with the object of the Legislature that the grave evils which

pose a danger to our natural environment can be

suppressed. The avarice of humankind through the ages has

resulted in an alarming depletion of the natural environment.

The consequence of climate change are bearing down on

3 AIR 2019 SC 1597.

SSP 13/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

every day of our existence. Stationary interpretation must

remain eternally vigilant to the daily assaults on the

environment.” (emphasis supplied)

27.In the light of the aforesaid statutory regime and judicial precedents,

which have expounded the object of the legislative provisions and the

approach to be adopted by the Courts in applying the relevant provisions to

the facts of the given case, the controversy at hand is required to be

appreciated. To start with, it is imperative to note that, there is not much

controversy over the factum of the seizure of the said vehicle along with the

forest-produce. The report of the Range Forest Officer evidences the factum

of seizure of the said vehicle along with the Charcoal.

28.It would be contextually relevant to note that, before the Authorized

Officer a submission was sought to be canvassed that the Forest officials had

planted the forest-produce in the said vehicle. Both the Authorized Officer

and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have repelled the said contention

as there was no material to lend credence to such gratuitous suggestion. No

contemporaneous document could be placed on record to demonstrate that

the Petitioner or Shivaji Mete had raised the said contention at the first

possible opportunity. In this view of the matter, the factum of seizure of the

forest-produce from the said vehicle can be said to have been established

beyond the pale of controversy.

SSP 14/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

29.It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioenr had obtained a

pass to transport the forest-produce as mandated by Rule 31(1) of the Rules,

2014. Nor Shivaji Mete claimed to have obtained such pass. Thus, both the

transit of the forest-produce and the absence of valid pass to transport the

forest-produce can be said to have been duly established.

30.As noted above, under Section 2(3) of the Act, 1927, forest-offence

means an offence punishable under the Forest Act, 1927 or under any rules

made thereunder. Section 42 of the Act, 1927, inter alia, provides that the

State Government may, by rules made under Section 41 prescribe penalties

for the contravention of those rules. Under Rule 82 of the Rules, 2014,

contravention of the provisions contained in Rule 31, which proscribes transit

of forest-produce sans valid pass, is punishable with imprisonment for a term

which may extend to one year or with fine, which may extend to two thousand

rupees or with both.

31.A cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions leads to an

inescapable inference that the transit of forest-produce without a valid pass

becomes punishable under the rules. Once an act or omission is made an

offence under any rule made under the provisions of the Act, 1927, it amounts

to a forest-offence within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, 1927.

32.Thus, in the facts of the case at hand, a forest-offence in the

contemplation of the provisions contained in Section 42 read with Section 41

SSP 15/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

and Rule 82 of the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014, can be said to have been

prima facie made out. Once this foundational fact is established, the inquiry

into justifiability of the exercise of the power to seize the forest-produce and

confiscate the vehicle assumes the character of an objective inquiry. The

power to seize and confiscate the forest-produce is conditioned by the

satisfaction to be recorded by the Authorized Officer that there was reason to

believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of the forest-

produce. In the case at hand, in view of the aforesaid rather indisputable

facts that Charcoal was being transported sans a valid transit pass, it cannot

be said that the Authorized Officer had no reason to believe that the forest-

offence has been committed in relation to the forest-produce.

33.It is imperative to note that under sub-section (3) of Section 61-A when

the Authorized Officer is satisfied that a forest-offence has been committed in

respect of forest-produce, produced before him, he shall order the forest-

produce so seized to be taken charge of by a forest officer and may order

confiscation of the tools, boats, vehicles and cattles used in committing such

offence.

34.The submission of Mr. Bhoite premised on the provisions contained in

section 55 of the Act, 1927 that the conviction for a commission of a forest-

offence is condition precedent, is not well founded. The provisions contained

in Section 61-A to 61-G, in their application to the State of Maharashtra,

SSP 16/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

enshrine a stringent statutory regime. Sub-section (3) of Section 61-A

specifically empowers the Authorized Officer to seize forest-produce and

order confiscation of all tools, boats, vehicles and cattles used in committing

such offence, notwithstanding whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the

commission of such offence. Thus, the submission of Mr. Bhoite that the

conviction for commission of a forest-offence is a must, before the forest-

produce and the vehicle can be seized, cannot be countenanced. Therefore,

reliance sought to be placed by Mr. Bhoite on a judgment of the Chhattisgarh

High Court in the case of Lala @ Uma Kant Shrivastava V/s. State of

Chhattisgarh and Ors.

4

, which dealt with the provisions contained in Section

55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Central Act), is inapposite.

35.Equally fallacious is the submission of Mr. Bhoite that the seizure and

confiscation of the forest-produce and the vehicle in exercise of the power

under Section 52 of the Act, 1927 must be preceded by a conviction for an

offence in respect of the forest-produce.

36.Suffice to note that the provisions contained in Section 61-A(1) begin

with a non-obstante clause not only with regard to the provisions of Chapter

IX under the heading “Penalties and Procedure” of the Indian Forest Act,

1927, but also any other law. Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

renders all timber or forest-produce which is not the property of Government

42011 DGLS (Chh) 318

SSP 17/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

and in respect of which a forest-offence has been committed, and all tools,

boats, carts and cattle used in committing any forest-offence, liable to be

confiscated. Thus, the further submission of Mr. Bhoite that the forest-produce

or vehicle must be found and seized on a government property is not at all

borne out by the plain text of Section 55 of the Act, 1955.

37.The challenge to the confiscation order on the ground of non-

observance of the principles of natural justice and fundamental principle of

judicial process is required to be noted to be repelled. The Authorized Officer

had taken pains to obtain information about the registered owner of the

vehicle and given ample opportunities to the Petitioner to participate in the

proceedings. Upon a statement being made that the Petitioner had delivered

the vehicle to Shivaji Mete, even the latter was provided an efficacious

opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner and Shivaji Mete appeared before the

Authorized Officer through legal practitioner and canvassed submissions.

Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be heard to urge that the Petitioner was not

provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing. In substance, the impugned

order and the confiscation order cannot be called in question on the ground of

infirm decision making process.

38.The conspectus of aforesaid consideration is that, none of the

contentions raised by Mr. Bhoite carry any conviction. The material on record

SSP 18/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

clearly indicates that the forest-produce was being clandestinely transported

sans a valid pass in the said vehicle.

39.A useful reference in this context can be made to a judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s. K. Krishnan

5

and a

Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shyamrao Kewalram

Kapgate and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

6

In the case of K.

Krishnan (supra), the Supreme Court enunciated that the provisions of the

Karnataka Forest Act were required to be strictly complied with and followed

for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal

approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to

confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of

the Act. The liberal approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission

of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not

protected, is surely to affect the mother-earth and the atmosphere

surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations

indicated in the Act, enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding

both the forests and their produce.

40.In the case of Shyamrao (supra), the Division Bench of this Court

enunciated that, once it was not in dispute that the Petitioners had been

transporting the forest-produce in the absence of any transit pass for such

5AIR 2000 SC 2729

62003(4) Mh.L.J. 181

SSP 19/20

wp 16 of 2024.doc

transportation of the forest-produce, the forest offence was clearly disclosed

and, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed under

Section 61-A and confirmed under Section 61-D of the said Act, on the ground

of absence of transit pass while transportation of such forest-produce.

41.In the backdrop of the approach expected of the Authority and the

Courts delineated above in the authoritative judicial pronouncements, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the appeal against the

confiscation order. Thus, I am impelled to hold that, no interference is

warranted in the impugned order.

42.Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i)The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(ii)Rule discharged.

(iii)No costs.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

43.At this stage, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks continuation of

the order dated 2 January 2024 for a period of six weeks.

44.In the light of the view this Court is persuaded to take, the prayer for

further continuation of the interim order, does not merit acceptance.

45.Thus, the oral application for stay stands rejected.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP 20/20