THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 6438 OF 2008 Dated 7th July, 2010 Between: Kotikalapudi Nagabhushana Rao and five others …Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By Its Principal Secretary to Forest Department and Another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy Counsel for the respondents: G.P for Forests The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings No.133 of 2006 dated 17.09.2007 issued by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. The petitioners are in possession of certain lands in respect of which the respondents claim that they fall within the Katrenipadu Forest Block of Katrenipadu Beat in R.S.No.454/1 of Nuzivid Section. Respondent No.2 has issued notice dated 17.09.2007 under Section 20 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”) to show cause why criminal action shall not be taken against the petitioners for having entered the above forest land. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the said notice on the ground that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to issue such notice and that it is only the Divisional Forest Officer, who is vested with such a jurisdiction. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and it is not necessary for this Court to refer to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit because in the view of this Court the very premise on which the petitioners filed this writ petition to question the notice issued by respondent No.2 has no basis. Section 20 of the Act deals with penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forest and acts prohibited in such forests. Under sub-section (3) of Section 20, a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Ranger among other Forest Officers specified therein is competent to evict the person from the forest or the land pertaining to which the contravention has taken place and remove any building or other construction or anything grown or deposited on it. Therefore, in my opinion, respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, however, limited to the purposes as mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notice does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that in response to the impugned notice, petitioner No.1 has submitted his reply dated 01.10.2007. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader submitted that he is not aware whether any order has been passed. As respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to submit their representations, if not already done. On receipt of such representations, respondent No.2 is entitled to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 20(3) of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 26.03.2008 is vacated. WPMP No.8406 of 2008 and WVMP No.1819 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th July, 2010 vrn