The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20577 of 2009 Dated 12th July, 2010 Between: Dharam Pal …Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer (WL) Proddatur, Kadapa District and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.G.V.Raghava Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash Proceedings No.UDOR No.2/2009-10, dated 17-08-2009, of respondent No.1, as illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner of lorry bearing registration No.HR 55 /C 3302. The said lorry was seized by the Forest Range Officer, Badvel, Kadapa District, on 28-04-2009 at about 6.00 a.m., in Lankamalla Reserve Forest, when it was found being loaded with red sander logs. While the persons involved in the operation have allegedly fled from the scene, the lorry was seized under Sections 20 and 29 (4) of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Red Sanders Transit Rules, 1969. The lorry along with the red sander logs was produced before the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division, Proddatur, on 28-04-2009 under Section 44 (2) of the Act and a case was registered as UDOR No. 2/2009-10 of Badvel Range. The petitioner made an application on 10-07-2009 before respondent No.1 for interim custody of the vehicle. The said application was rejected by respondent No.1 vide his proceedings, dated 17-08-2009, which is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri G.V.Raghava Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that detention of the lorry for unduly long period without releasing the same to the petitioner is causing deterioration in its condition and value. The facts noted above reveal that the lorry was seized as far back as 28-04-2009. As more than 14 months had elapsed since the seizure and the proceedings under Section 44 of the Act are stated to be pending, I am of the view that the lorry cannot be released at this juncture. The learned Counsel representing the Government Pleader is unable to state the present stage of the confiscation proceedings. Having initiated the confiscation proceedings in April, 2009, respondent No.1 should have shown proper urgency in disposing of the same so that even in the event of a confiscation order being passed, the State will be in a position to recover proper value of the truck. By keeping the confiscation proceedings pending for unduly long time, the condition and the value of the lorry can be deteriorated causing loss both to its owner and also the State. If the confiscation proceedings have not been completed so far, it is utmost necessary that respondent No.1 completes the same with reasonable despatch and at the earliest. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the confiscation proceedings and pass appropriate order, if not already done, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.26829 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th July, 2010 lur