IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3613 of 2004 Between: B.Habeebulla, S/o B.Bablu Saheb, R/o H.No.7/658/A, Rahmathnagar, Anantapur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Management Division, Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 The Forest Range Officer, S.V.National Park, Chamala, Chittoor District 3 The Forest Beat Officer, Talakana Central Beat, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order of the 1st respondent herein vide proceedings No.UDOR No.36/2003-04/NP3 dated 11-2-2004 (Wrongly stated as 11-2-2003) as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to release the lorry bearing registration No.A.P.31 W.6912 in favour of the petitioner forthwith, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.SOFIA BEGUM Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR FORESTS FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3613 of 2004 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the 1st respondent, dated 11-02-2004, (wrongly typed as 11-02-2003) in rejecting to release the lorry bearing No.AP-31-W-6912, pending enquiry under Section 44 of A.P.Forest Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”). This court, while admitting the writ petition on 27-02-2004, directed the respondents to release the lorry bearing No.AP-31-W-6912 subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the 1st respondent and also on condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking that he will not alienate the vehicle or create any third party liability against the said lorry. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the lorry was seized, while it was transporting red sanders logs, on 02-12-2003, and admittedly, at the time of the impugned order, confiscation proceedings under Section 44 of the Act are pending and therefore, the 1st respondent refused to grant interim custody of the lorry, so as to prevent the petitioner from committing further forest offence, as held by the Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNTAKA Vs. K.KRISHNA[1]. As the interim order granted by this court on 27-02-2004 was made absolute on 29-04-2004, I am of the opinion that any release of the vehicle will be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the 1st respondent under Section 44 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry under Section 44 of the Act and pass appropriate final orders, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. In fact, the interim order passed by this court will be subject to the final orders that may be passed by the 1st respondent. However, it is made clear that if the confiscation orders have been passed, then it is open for the respondents to seize the vehicle of the petitioner and if the orders passed under Section 44 of the Act are in favour of the petitioner, the vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-07-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSR} [1] AIR 2000 SC 2729