THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11013 of 2000 Date: 30.01.2008 Between: Mohd. Haji … Petitioner AND The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11013 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 11.03.1996 vide Rc.No.3613/94/S5 of respondent No.1 and order, dated 21.09.1999 passed in CMA.No.11 of 1996 on the file of District Judge, Karimnagar. At the hearing, neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned Government Pleader for Forests is present. I have perused the record. Lorry bearing No.AHT 9093 owned by the petitioner was intercepted on 07.05.1994, when it was found carrying on 27 numbers teak logs at Eklaspur PWD Road. The vehicle was seized and a case was registered by Deputy Range Officer, Begampet vide POR.No.41/426, dated 07.05.1994. Proceedings vide R.C.No.3613/94/S5, dated 22.06.1995, were initiated by respondent No.1 under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’). After holding enquiry, respondent No.1 vide order, dated 11.03.1996 confiscated the forest produce (27 numbers teak logs) valued at Rs.78,247.45 ps. along with tools, tarpaulin and lorry bearing No.AHT 9093 under Section 44(2-C) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeal (CMA.No.11 of 1996) in the Court of District Judge, Karimnagar. By order, dated 21.09.1999, the said appeal was dismissed. Assailing these two orders, the present writ petition is filed. A perusal of the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 shows that the lorry driver fled away from the scene on being accosted by the forest officials and the statement of the Cleaner was recorded on the spot. The petitioner gave surety for the release of the Cleaner. The statement of the Cleaner revealed that the lorry was taken from Hyderabad to Bhupalpalli for transportation of coal, that in the midnight of 06.05.1994, certain unknown persons spoke to the driver Sri Md.Hameed for transportation of timber and that for the said purpose, the lorry was brought to Devarampalli Village of Kataram Mandal, where teak logs were loaded. He further stated that when the lorry crossed the road from Eklaspur to Kanapur, it was stopped and the lorry driver and the owner of the timber ran away on observing the forest officials. During the enquiry, the petitioner was given notice and thereupon, he appeared before respondent No.1. After completing the enquiry, he passed the above-mentioned order of confiscation. The learned District Judge after detailed consideration of the appeal, concurred with the findings of respondent No.1 and confirmed the order of confiscation. Under Section 44(2-A) of the Act, where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) any timber or forest produce or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him under sub- section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the timber or forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence. Sub Section (2-B) of the Act provides for procedure to be followed before passing the order of confiscation. Sub-Section (2-C) of the Act, which is relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced below: “Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2-B), no order of confiscation under sub-section (2-A) of any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that it was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.” From the provision extracted above, in order to claim release of the lorry while order to take the benefit of the provisions of sub section (2-C) of the Act, the owner of the lorry shall not only prove to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the same was used without his knowledge or connivance but also that his agent, if any or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle had no knowledge of or connivance in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. The pleadings contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not to the effect that the driver of the lorry who is deemed to be in the custody of the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner had neither any knowledge of nor did he connive in committing of the offence. His pleadings suggest that the petitioner proceeded on the premise that he will be entitled to the release of the lorry, if it is clearly shown that he had no knowledge of or connivance in the commission of the forest offence. I am of the considered view that this alone would not be enough for securing the release of the lorry under Section 44(2-C) of the Act. The material on record does not reveal that it is the case of the petitioner that he, neither his driver nor the Cleaner had any knowledge of or were in connivance in the commission of the forest offence. Unless the petitioner raised such a plea and substantiated the same by producing necessary material, he is not entitled to invoke the benefit of Section 44(2-C) of the Act. From a careful perusal of the orders of respondent Nos.1 and 3, I am satisfied that they do not suffer from any legal error warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th JANUARY, 2008 kvni