HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.22587 of 2010 Date : 22-9-2011 Between : Pattabhi Ramaiah .. Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad Division, Adilabad District and another .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri Layeeq Khan Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Forests The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing vehicle bearing registration No.AP 09 BH 7149 of Maruti Alto make (for short “the vehicle”) to the petitioner as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 54 r/w. Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short "the Act"). I have heard Sri Layeeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. Respondent No.2 has inspected the vehicle and found that a Sand Boa snake was being carried in the said vehicle. On the report dated 29-12-2009 submitted by the Forest Range Officer, Nirmal, respondent No.1 has compounded the offence by collecting Rs.25,000/- towards compounding fees. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the said compounding fees on 29-12-2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite composition of the offence, the vehicle has not been released to him. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is inter alia stated that even though the petitioner has paid the compounding fees and the offence was compounded, he is not entitled to release of the vehicle in view of the purportedly amended Section 54 of the Act. He has stated that under the pre-amended provision of Section 54 of the Act, sub-section (2) thereof envisaged that on payment of the compounded sum, the suspected person, in custody, shall be discharged and the property other than the Government property, if any, seized shall be released and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. Respondent No.2 further pleaded that an amendment was made to Section 54 of the Act and sub-section (2) thereof, as amended, provided that on payment of the compounded sum, the suspected person, if in custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings in respect of the offence shall be taken against such person. Even though respondent No.2 has reproduced the purported amended provision of Section 54 of the Act with four sub-sections, he has however added in the counter-affidavit that the amended provision prescribed that the vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used for committing the offence shall be seized and the same shall be the property of the Government. This case was adjourned more than once to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests to place before the Court the amended provision which contains the provision that the seized vehicle, vessel etc., shall be the property of the Government. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to place any such amended provision before the Court. In the absence of such a provision, it is not possible for this Court to accept the plea of respondent No.2, as reflected in the counter-affidavit, that despite composition of the offence, the seized vehicle, belonging to the petitioner, becomes the property of the Government. This stand runs counter to the express provision of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Act, as noted above. Inasmuch as, the offence has already been compounded, I do not find any justification for the respondents not to release the vehicle to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. As a sequel, WPMP No.28803/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 22-9-2011 AM