THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 12th August 2009 WRIT APPEAL NOs.1795 and 1799 of 2002 1. W.A.No.1795 of 2002 Between: M.A.Lateef, S/o.Late M.A.Jaleel, 36 years, M/s.Jaleel Saw Mill, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. …APPELLANT AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh through Authorised Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. And one other. …RESPONDENTS 2. W.A.No.1799 of 2002 Between: M.A.Lateef, S/o.Late M.A.Jaleel, 36 years, M/s.Jaleel Saw Mill, Banswada Mandal, Nizamabad District. …APPELLANT AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh through Authorised Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOs.1795 and 1799 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Since both the appeals arise out of common order dated 24.09.2002 in W.P.Nos.22959 and 22924 of 2001 respectively, they are taken up together for disposal. Both the appeals are filed seeking to assail the correctness of the proceedings of the second respondent herein initiated against the deceased father of the appellant-petitioner, late M.A.Jaleel, in respect of the offences committed under the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 {“the Act” for brevity}. Having regard to the death of the father of the appellant-petitioner, there could not be any order as such for such offences, which runs only against an individual. Hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that having regard to the allegations made against the deceased father, proceedings were initiated and while proceedings were pending before the second respondent, the father of the appellant-petitioner died on 19.10.1993. It is only on the basis of the written arguments submitted by the counsel appearing for the deceased father, the orders were passed on 11.08.1995 under Section 44 of the Act for confiscation. Though the matter was carried in appeal, the same was confirmed and the learned Single Judge also confirmed the proceedings in the Writ Petitions. Hence, the appeal. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is quite apparent that as on the date of passing the order by primary authority i.e. on 11.08.1995, the party, against whom proceedings were initiated, was not alive as he died on 19.10.1993. Therefore, the said orders are against a dead person, which no longer sustain and the entire proceedings are vitiated. Both the Writ Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 12th August 2009 RRB