The Kerala High Court has held that blanket protection under the caption of “good faith” cannot be granted to the forest officers as it would give them an unbridled freedom to seize any articles under the guise of involvement which is an offence under the Forest Protection Act.

The Court was considering an appeal against an order of the Trial Court whereby it granted relief to Plaintiff in a Suit for Mandatory Injunction seeking return of the machineries seized by the third defendant, Forest Range Officer, on the allegation that those were items involved in a crime and for damages arising out of the suit.

The single-bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "......blanket protection under the caption “good faith” cannot be granted to the forest officers. If such a procedure is permitted, the forest officers would get an unbridled freedom to seize any articles under the guise of involvement in an offence under the Forest Act and in such cases, if at a later stage, a competent court finds the procedure and seizure to be illegal, the persons affected by such acts done by the forest officers would be in peril and there will be no remedy for them to compensate their losses."

The Appellant was represented by Special Government Pleader Nagaraj Narayan while the Respondent was represented by Advocate K.M. Sathyanatha Menon.

Facts of the Case

According to the Respondent-Plaintiff, Rs.700/- per month for 29 months towards rent was lost on account of seizure of the machineries and Rs.30,000/- loss was incurred towards deterioration of the value of the seized machineries and he claimed the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

It was the Plaintiff's case that those machineries were illegally seized by the third defendant and later, those machineries were confiscated illegally. Challenging confiscation, the Plaintiff filed two Applications and the same were allowed and accordingly, confiscation proceedings were set-aside on the finding that the same were illegal.

According to the Plaintiff, due to illegal seizure and confiscation of the machineries, he lost rent for a period of twenty nine months and also sustained damages on account of the deterioration of the machineries which were seized and confiscated. Finally, the trial court found the Plaintiff to be entitled to the reliefs claimed and accordingly granted them.

In the present Appeal, the Defendants assailed the verdict with the main contention that the court below found that there was no evidence in the circumstances to see that Defendants 2 and 3 were not acting in good faith in pursuance of the provision of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

The further contention was that, no suit shall lie against any public servant for any act done or omitted or ordered to be done, in good faith, in pursuance of the the Act, 1961, as contemplated under Section 74 of the Act, 1961. According to the Defendants, there was already a judgment by the District Court, Manjeri to return the articles and therefore, the suit is barred by res judicata. It was thus submitted that the trial court went wrong in granting decree, and the suit is liable to be dismissed by allowing this appeal by giving protection under Section 74 of the Act, 1961 to the bona fide acts of Defendants 2 and 3.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that since the seizure and confiscation of the machineries were found to be illegal by the District Court, the Defendants are bound to compensate the loss and the same alone at the bare minimum was allowed by the trial court as per the verdict impugned.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that Section 74 provides indemnity for acts done in good faith by the public servant/forest officials, but acts done not in good faith will not receive the protection under this section.

"In civil proceedings, “good faith” refers to the legal principle that parties involved in a law suit should act honestly, fairly and without an intention to deceive or take unfair advantage of the other party, essentially, meaning they should conduct themselves with sincerity and without malicious intention. Thus, either in civil proceedings or in criminal proceedings, careless and negligent act as well as deliberate invocation of official power to wreck vengeance would not come under the term “good faith”. In such cases, the indemnity to a public servant/forest officer provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1961, would not be available," the Court observed.

Pointing out that the suit was filed on 15.2.1992 and the confiscation order was passed on 30.3.2002, the Court asserted that the suit is not barred by res judicata or in any other manner. It also stated that in the instant case, merely suspecting the involvement of the machineries of the plaintiff in an offence under the Act, 1961, the forest officials seized the same and subjected the same to confiscation.

"It is true that in cases where the act done by the public servant/forest official is found to be done in good faith, Section 74 of the Act, 1961, would grant indemnity to the public servant/forest official against civil proceedings/criminal proceedings. But as already pointed out in such cases, whether the act was done or omitted to be done or ordered to be done in “good faith” is to be addressed from the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule to be declared. To put it otherwise, the protection provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1961, is not absolute though the same protects a forest officer from legal proceedings if he acted in good faith while performing the official duties under the Act, 1961. Therefore, a court can examine the actions if there is evidence of malicious intent or deliberate negligence and carelessness. That is to say, when it could be found that the forest officer acted in good faith on genuine belief, the said act alone would be protected, and Section 74, and is not a shield for the forest officer/public servant to do anything without rational application of his cognitive faculty on the premise of protection given under Section 74 of the Act, 1961. Therefore, if forest officers who are accountable for their actions, do certain acts in blatant disregard to the ordinary care and caution, and with wrong or malicious intent, the said actions would not get indemnity or protection under Section 74 of the Act, 1961," the Court observed.

The Court thus held that blanket protection under the caption of “good faith” cannot be granted to the forest officers.

"In the instant case, the seizure was at the instance of the 3rd defendant who suspected involvement of the machineries in O.R.No.90/89, but as per Ext.A8, the District Judge found in the negative and set aside the seizure as well as the confiscation. In such a case, by merely giving protection under the caption of “good faith”, a person who suffered loss and filed a suit to get the articles or claim damages thereof, could not be denied. Thus, in the instant case, the available evidence would suggest that the plaintiff sustained Rs.20,300/- towards rent for twenty nine months and also Rs.30,000/- as claimed towards the value of the machineries. Therefore, the trial court rightly granted decree, bifurcating the amount as discussed in the order," the Court observed.

The Appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: State of Kerala vs. P.V. Abbobacker (2025:KER:5106)

Appearances:

Appellant- Special Government Pleader Nagaraj Narayan

Respondent- Advocate K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, Government Pleader T.S. Jibu

Click here to read/ download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice A Badharudeen

Sheetal Joon