IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3586 of 2004 Between: 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by Forest Range Officer, Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND Sri Kshatriya Amarnath Singh, S/o.Chandra Bharu Singh Owner of Vehicle, R/o.Kuneru Villagae, Komarada Mandal Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order in C.M.A.No.22 of 2002 dated 13-10-2003 and to qaush the same as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent: MR. C.PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.3586 OF 2004 ORDER: State of Andhra Pradesh and Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam, ﬁled instant writ petition challenging the order of Court of District Judge, Vizianagaram in C.M.A.No.22 of 2002, dated 13.10.2003. By impugned order, learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal ﬁled by respondent against order, dated 10.05.2002 of Conservator of Forests whereby and whereunder illicit transportation of 3,665 kg of Naramamidi Bark is compounded and ordered release of the vehicle bearng No.AP 31 V 8230. The Forest Range Oﬃcer, Parvathipuram detected a van coming from Kunuru to Parvathipuram. It was loaded with Naramamidi Bark. For the said alleged illegal transportation, Sub Divisional Forest Oﬃcer compounded the forest oﬀence for Rs.1,97,910/- against respondent and two others. Respondents ﬁled an appeal under Rule 10(1) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Oﬀences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969 (Compounding Rules, for brevity). The appeal was accepted and order of Sub Divisional Forest Oﬃcer was modiﬁed. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred C.M.A.No.22 of 2002 under Section 44(2-E) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (Forest Act, for brevity). The Court of District Judge, Vizianagaram, modiﬁed the order of second respondent ordering release of van and conﬁrming the order of conﬁscation of Naramamidi Bark. Bank Guarantee furnished by respondent was also directed to be released. The order of District Court is challenged in the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader submits that when once the vehicle is found to be transporting the forest produce illegally, vehicle cannot be released. The submission cannot be accepted. As per Section 59(2)(iii) of Forest Act, when once forest oﬀence is compounded, it is not permissible to take further proceedings against person or property. Learned District Judge, therefore, was justiﬁed in directing release of the vehicle and return of Bank Guarantee. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 10.11.2008. pln