IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.8383 of 2005 Between: V.Sreenivasa Raju, S/o.Late V.Kama Raju, Age 28 years, Berhampore, Orissa State. ...Petitioner And The Conservative of Forest, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam, And another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8383 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 14.10.2004 of respondent No.2 whereby he imposed a compounding fee of Rs.83,200/-, and consequential proceedings dated 20.12.2004 issued by respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests and perused the record. The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing registration No.OR 07 H 1861 which was engaged for transportation of 14.315 MT of bamboo cuts from Baripada Village, Orissa State, to J.K.Paper Mills, J.K.Pur, Rayagada. The bamboo is exempted from the purview of Transit Rules of Orissa, whereas such exemption is not available in the State of Andhra Pradesh. As the lorry was found plying in the Andhra Pradesh Territory, the same was seized and a case was registered as POR No.36, dated 25.09.2004, by the Forest Range Officer, I/C Palakonda, under Section 29 read with Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. Show cause notice dated 11.10.2004 was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam. The petitioner attended enquiry on 16.10.2004 wherein he has admitted that the driver of the truck has entered the Andhra Pradesh State instead of taking the truck through Orissa State and therefore he has consented for compounding the offence. Having paid the compounding fee of Rs.83,200/- and got the truck released, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner maintained that he signed the statement without intending to compound the offence and that he was under the impression that his signatures were being taken for the purpose of release of the lorry. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 the said allegation has been denied. It has been, inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s statement was recorded during the course of enquiry on 16.10.2004 and the seized lorry along with bamboo cuts were ordered to be released on the petitioner paying compounding fee. It is also stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 was dismissed vide his proceedings dated 20.12.2004. In the light of the facts referred to above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to make out any case that he was mislead into signing the statement and that the same was used for compounding the offence. The petitioner has got the benefit of release of lorry on the basis of the compounding order. Thus having derived the benefit of release of lorry, the petitioner has turned round and questioned validity of the compounding proceedings. In the absence of any material in support of the petitioner’s plea that he has subscribed his signatures without being aware of the purpose for which they were taken, I am not prepared to accept the said plea. For the above mentioned reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents have not released the bamboo cuts seized by them. If the bamboo cuts have not already been released, respondents shall release the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:18.12.2009 vs