THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14768 of 1999 ORDER: The second respondent is the owner of a vehicle bearing No.AAG 8829. It was engaged by an individual to transport timber from Warangal to Madras. The necessary transport permit was produced and lorry was loaded with teak logs measuring 11.656 cubic metres. The lorry was intercepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam. He doubted the genuinity of the permit and seized the lorry together with the timber. The transport permit No.17/172, dated 27.08.1990, was sent for verification to the concerned authorities in the department. Later, it emerged that the permit was forged. On this basis, proceedings under Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act were initiated against the owner of the lorry and against the person, who is transporting the timber. Through his order, dated 11.08.1993, the Authorized Officer/Divisional Forest Officer directed confiscation of the timber as well as lorry. The second respondent filed F.A.No.4 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Khammam. Through its judgment, dated 26.10.1998, the learned District Judge, Khammam allowed the appeal and directed release of the lorry. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader for Forests submits that the permit on the basis of which the timber was being transported through the lorry was found to be fabricated, and in that view of the matter, an offence under the Act came to be established. She contends that the learned District Judge did not examine the matter from correct perspective and gave excessive benefit of doubt to the second respondent. The record discloses that the second respondent was not served, on account of non-payment of batta. This Court could have dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the process was not paid for the second respondent. Instead of standing on technicalities, the matter was examined on merits. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the lorry was released to the second respondent through order, in W.P.No.14732 of 1990, dated 24.10.1990. That, however, was at a stage when the proceedings before the Forest Officer were pending. An order was passed for confiscation of the lorry as well as timber. It is only the owner of the lorry i.e., the second respondent, who approached the appellate Court. Extensive discussion was undertaken by the learned District Judge as to whether the second respondent was aware of the fictitious nature of the permit or the factum of the vehicle being put to any illegal use. It has been observed that the Officer, who seized the lorry, himself was not clear as to whether the permit was forged and it took nearly two months to come to a conclusion. When such is the nature of permit, the second respondent, much less his driver and cleaner, can be expected to be more accurate in their assessment of the permit. Nothing was suggested to disclose that the second respondent or his driver and cleaner are in any way associated with the illicit transport of timber. The department has already confiscated the timber and no proceedings were initiated against the same. Learned District Judge has assigned cogent reasons in support of his judgment. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:10.12.2008 GJ