.....all bring out an anomalous situation so as to defeat the right of the orissa state financial corporation. agreement between the orissa state financial corporation and the loanee is a pure and simple contract governed by the provisions of the contract act, 1872 read with the provisions in the act, 1951 and its rules. on the other hand, a confiscation proceeding under the act, 1972 is punitive in nature for commission of a forest offence. thus, by virtue of the provision in section 56 read with section 64 (2) of the act, 1972, the action taken for confiscation of the vehicle cannot be extended to grant protection of the loan advanced by orissa state financial corporation. by doing that it amounts to grant premium to the pick-pockets in as much as, by making payment of the confiscation amount in favour of the orissa state financial corporation the loan burden of the accused of the forest offence is reduced to the extent of the sale proceeds of the vehicle. in other words, on payment of the sale proceeds of the confiscation proceeding to the orissa state financial corporation towards discharge of the loan account of the accused of a forest offence, it would lead to a system to reward him by repayment of his loan. then it does not become a penalty nor the action become punitive, but it remains as a reward to the accused of forest offence. such a concept is totally not conceivable from any provision in the act, 1972 or the act, 1951. [air 2002 orissa 130 overruled]. -- state financial corporations act, 1951.
section 29; discharge of loan orissa forest act (14 of 1972), section 56 confiscation of vehicle - held, the authorities under section 56 of the orissa forest act, 1972 are not obliged to release the vehicle from the confiscation proceeding or to pay the sale proceeds of the vehicle after the order of confiscation in favour of orissa state financial corporation when such vehicles were purchased on being financed by the orissa state financial corporation and.....order1. heard learned counsels for the parties. this writ application is directed against the order passed by the judge, family court, cut tack, granting interim maintenance to the opposite parties.2. there is no dispute that the suit for maintenance is pending. of course, in a pending suit for maintenance, in exercise of powers under section 151 of the code of civil procedure, direction regarding interim maintenance can be made depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. in the present case, widowed-daughter-in-law and her children have claimed maintenance against her father-in-law. the order of the judge, family court, does not indicate about any independent income of the present opp. parties. initially, i was inclined to remand the matter to the judge, family court, for causing an enquiry on this aspect. however, the enquiry for the purpose of interim maintenance may also take some time as would be required for deciding the suit on merit. in such view of the matter, while quashing the order passed by the judge, family court, j direct that the entire suit shall be disposed of on merit within six months from the date of communication of this order.3. the writ application is accordingly allowed. no costs.4. writ application allowed.