IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.22145 OF 2010 Date:09-11-2011 Between:- Muduganti Venkat Reddy … Petitioner And The Forest Range Officer, Special Party, Jagtial, Karimnagar West Division, Karimnagar District and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.22145 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the application, dated 03-04-2010, of the petitioner for renewal of the licence of making the charcoal in Survey No.310/C, Burugupally Village, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District and seizing the material in the depot and registering crime No.POR No.004641/1993, dated 05-07-2010, by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioner for making charcoal and also direct the respondents to release the seized material in connection with the crime registered against the petitioner. 2. The brier facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner is doing charcoal business in Survey No.310/C, Burugupally, Village, Gangadhar Mandal, Karimnagar District. He was issued licecne in the year 2003 by the 2nd respondent and the same was renewed from time to time. The petitioner made an application on 03-04-2010 to the 2nd respondent for renewal of the licence. On 05-07-2010, the 1st respondent visited the premises of the Charcoal Depot and registered a case in POR No.004641/93 without verifying any records and seized the stock under panchanama, on the ground that the petitioner is doing the business without valid licence. The application made by the petitioner for renewal of his licence is pending before the 2nd respondent. The material seized in the case claims to be purchased by the petitioner and the charcoal was manufactured during the period of existence of the licence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charcoal seized from the petitioner was purchased by the petitioner from the farmers, but it was seized on the ground that it is forest produce and that the petitioner is ready to furnish the bank guarantee as determined by the Forest Officials and prays to release of the charcoal. 5. The Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, stated that she has no objection for return of the seized property, subject to giving of bank guarantee. 6. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the value of the property, seized by the Forest Range Officer, is at Rs.33,17,941/-. Therefore, there is no impediment for release of the charcoal to the petitioner, provided he furnishes the bank guarantee for Rs.33,17,941/- to the 1st respondent. On production of such bank guarantee, the charcoal shall be released to the petitioner. Encashment of the bank guarantee shall be subject to the decision that may be taken in the case in POR No.004641/1993 pending before the Forest Officers. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J November 09, 2011. KTL