SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the confiscation of 6,150 willow clefts and a truck carrying them, holding that the confiscation proceedings were illegal as no prescribed procedure exists under the Jammu and Kashmir Willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act, 2000 following the repeal of the JK Forest Act, 1987. The court also held that, in the case of non-government property, confiscation cannot be finalised before conviction in the underlying criminal case.
Justice MA Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on July 30, 2026, allowed two petitions filed by Mymoona, proprietor of M/S Mymoona Sports, and M/S Jammu Indore Roadways, and ordered the final release of the 6,150 willow clefts and truck No. JK-21G/9603.
The court held that there was “admittedly neither registration of criminal case, nor conviction of the offenders” and therefore the confiscation proceedings conducted by the Authorised Officer and subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority were not legally sustainable.
The judgment arose from two connected petitions—WP(Crl) No.59/2025 filed by Mymoona, a 63-year-old resident of Chersoo, Awantipora, and proprietor of M/S Mymoona Sports, and WP(C) No.1985/2025 filed by M/S Jammu Indore Roadways of SIDCO Complex, Bari Brahmana, Samba. The petitions were clubbed as they arose from the same order and involved an identical factual and legal background.
The case originated on December 12, 2023, when truck No. JK-21G/9603 was detained at the Lakhanpur toll plaza at around 6 am. The vehicle had been carrying a consignment of willow clefts destined for Meerut in Uttar Pradesh.
According to the Forest Department report, the bill and e-way bill indicated 6,250 clefts. On physical verification in the presence of driver Kuldip Singh, however, 6,150 willow clefts were found. The Forest Department also noted that M/S Mymoona Sports had generated an NOC for 7,000 Populus species, whereas the e-way bill related to willow clefts. The driver was allegedly unable to produce the documents required for taking the willow clefts outside Jammu and Kashmir. The willow clefts and truck were consequently seized.
A Forest Office Report dated December 12, 2023 was registered under provisions of the J&K Willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act, 2000, along with provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Rule 7(3) of S.O. 81 of 2020 for initiating confiscation proceedings. The Authorised Officer, after informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, initiated proceedings and confiscated the willow clefts and vehicle on January 31, 2024.
The petitioners challenged the confiscation before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua. On May 28, 2024, the court directed the Authorised Officer to hear the parties afresh, cross-examine witnesses and record their statements. After doing so, the Authorised Officer again ordered confiscation on October 14, 2024.
The petitioners then filed separate appeals before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, JK. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals on June 28, 2025 and upheld the October 14, 2024 confiscation order. This led to the two petitions before the High Court.
Appearing for Mymoona, advocate Jagpaul Singh, assisted by Nikhil Sharma, argued that no criminal case had been registered under the J&K Willow Act and that Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act required conviction before confiscation. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority.
Singh further argued that the JK Forest Act, 1987 had been repealed following the JK Reorganisation Act, 2019 and replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927, but the Government had not issued a notification replacing SRO 308 of September 12, 2003, which prescribed the confiscation procedure under the erstwhile JK Forest Act.
He also contended that there was nothing on record to show that the willow clefts were being transported with the knowledge or consent of the owner of the truck. Since the vehicle was intercepted within JK, he argued, the alleged export had not actually taken place and, at most, the driver’s conduct could constitute preparation to commit the offence.
For Jammu Indore Roadways, senior advocate K Nirmal Kotwal, assisted by advocates Savesh Kotwal and Pawan Dev Singh, argued that the transport company had no knowledge that the consignment was banned or contraband. The company, he said, had instructed its driver not to load or transport contraband and had accepted the assignment in good faith. He sought release of the truck.
The government’s case was opposed by Deputy Advocate General Meenakshi Slathia, who argued that the petitioners had raised disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
She maintained that there was no procedural or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Authorised Officer or the Appellate Authority and argued that the petitioners’ reliance on Section 55 of the Indian Forest Act was misplaced.
Slathia relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v Kallo Bai, arguing that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings are independent and can proceed in parallel. According to the government’s position, confiscation did not depend upon registration, prosecution or conviction in a criminal case, particularly as the willow clefts were allegedly being transported from Kashmir to Uttar Pradesh without a valid permit.
Justice Chowdhary examined Section 3 of the JK Willow Act, which prohibits the carriage and export of willow outside the erstwhile State except under government orders or those of an authorised authority. Section 4 permits seizure of willow and the carrier where there are reasons to believe that the willow is being carried or attempted to be carried for export in violation of the Act, while making the seized material liable to confiscation according to a procedure to be prescribed by the Government.
The court found that SRO 308 of September 12, 2003 had prescribed the confiscation procedure by reference to the JK Forest Act, 1987. However, that Act was repealed after the JK Reorganisation Act, 2019 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was made applicable to the Union Territory.
Crucially, the court found that the Government had not issued a new order replacing SRO 308 and prescribing the procedure for confiscation under the Willow Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Indian Forest Act could not simply be applied to the Willow Act without such a rule or standing order.
The court described the consequence in emphatic terms, holding that the confiscation proceedings against the truck and willow clefts were “illegal, ab initio, without any legal backing with regard to the procedure.” It consequently held that both the Authorised Officer’s confiscation order and the Appellate Authority’s order affirming it could not stand.
The High Court also drew a distinction between government and private property. It held that an Authorised Officer can independently confiscate government forest property and the carrier involved in a forest offence without waiting for the conclusion of the criminal trial. But where the seized property is non-government property, confiscation cannot be ordered until the offender has been convicted by a Magistrate.
The court rejected the government’s reliance on Kallo Bai, observing that the Madhya Pradesh law considered by the Supreme Court contained an independent statutory power permitting confiscation before guilt was established. The High Court found that no comparable provision existed under the J&K Forest Act, 1987 for non-government property.
It also relied on principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v Madhukar Rao and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests v J K Johnson, noting that where criminal proceedings are pending, final confiscation of a vehicle should not precede the conclusion of those proceedings.
The High Court ultimately held that, in the case of the private willow clefts involved in the matter, confiscation proceedings could not be finalised before conviction. Since there had been neither registration of a criminal case nor conviction, the confiscation orders could not be sustained.
The court accordingly allowed both petitions, quashed the orders of the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority, and directed that the 6,150 willow clefts and truck JK-21G/9603 be finally released in favour of the petitioners.
The judgment, however, made it clear that the ruling should not be read as weakening the legal protection afforded to forests. Justice Chowdhary noted the constitutional obligations under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g), and said statutory interpretation must remain vigilant to environmental harm.
At the same time, the court said that without a prescribed procedure for dealing with seized willow, confiscation proceedings could not be undertaken by Forest, Industries or Police officials. It directed that, if the Government is serious about enforcing the Willow Act, it should issue a notification or standing order prescribing the procedure for dealing with seized property.
The court further directed the JK Forest Department to submit a proposal to the Government for consideration within eight weeks from the date of the judgment. A copy of the order was also directed to be forwarded to the Administrative Secretary of the Forest Department for compliance.
The judgment was reserved on July 20, 2026 and pronounced on July 30, 2026.
