IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 395 of 2008 Between: Shaik Hussain, S/o Shaik Moulana Saheb, R/o Pedavenkatapuram Village, Yeturunagaram Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Authorised Officer and Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Yeturunagaram, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seizing tractor bearing No.AP 36 l 4142 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Art.21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.395 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in seizing tractor bearing No. AP 36 L 4142, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests. It is asserted on behalf of the State that the Tractor said to be owned and belonging to the writ petitioner has, in fact, been involved in a forest offence and that in terms of Section 34-A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, a show cause notice has been issued to the writ petitioner by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, providing him an opportunity to contest the issue of confiscation of the vehicle. It has been also pointed out that the petitioner had filed his reply to the show cause notice dated 15-10-2007, on 31-01-2008 and that the explanation is receiving the attention of the respondents. In the mean time, the petitioner had moved an application on 16-01-2008 asking for temporary/interim custody of the tractor seized from him. The application for interim custody is liable to be considered on its merits. Subject to such conditions as are considered appropriate and necessary, the vehicle may be considered to be released to the writ petitioner. Since the proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle itself have been pending for nearly two months, it is only hoped that the proceedings in terms of Section 34- A of the Act, will be finalized within period of three months from now, at any rate, on or before 30th June 2008. In the mean time, the application moved by the writ petitioner on 16-01-2008 for temporary/interim custody of the vehicle pending finalization of the Proceedings under Section 34-A of the Act, may be considered and appropriate orders be passed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, in the circumstances, without costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue copy in three days. (bo) 27th March 2008 mrk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}