THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15911 of 2009 ORDER: The Forest Range Deputy Officer, Dharoor Section, Vikarabad Range, the 2nd respondent herein, registered POR 15-21/86 against the petitioner, on 14-03-2009, under various provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’). It was alleged that the tractor of the petitioner was used in transporting a Cheetal, that was killed in a reserve forest. The petitioner initially approached the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, for release of the vehicle. That did not fructify. In pursuance of a direction issued by this Court, in W.P.No.10782 of 2009, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with a prayer to release the vehicle. The 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 04-07-2009, rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was not aware, that the tractor and trailor were utilized for transporting a killed wild animal, and that he is prepared to provide adequate security. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that there is no provision for release of the vehicle, or vessel, which is utilized in hunting and killing the wild animal. Reference is made to Section 39 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Forest. The offences of illicit felling of trees and killing of wild animals are on the rise. Naturally, this is having its own effect upon the environment and the wild life. The greed of human beings is growing in geometrical proportions. The record placed before this Court discloses that a spotted deer was killed and it was being transported in the trolley, owned by the petitioner. The respondents must be complimented for the manner in which, they dealt with the matter. Not only the relevant material, but also the photographs, depicting the offence, are filed before this Court. Notwithstanding the allegations against the petitioner, had there been a provision for release of the vehicle, pending investigation, or trial into the matter, this Court would certainly have considered it. Obviously on account of the emphasis on protection of wild life, Parliament did not think it fit to incorporate any provision for release of the vehicles and vessels. On the other hand, Section 39 of the Act directs that, the vehicles and vessels, that are used against the wild life, shall become the property of the Government. The emphasis appears to be, to prevent the vehicle, from being used in similar type of offences. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the 2nd respondent shall conclude the proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-10-2009. KO