The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.20180 of 2009 Dated 12th July, 2010 Between: Orient Road Carriers …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep. by Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Valluri Mohan Srinivas Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seizing the angles shapes and sections G.P.275 GSM metal angles enclosed by the respondents, as illegal. The petitioner is a carrier. M/s.Pennar Industries Limited, Patancheru unit, has entrusted certain consignment consisting of the above material to the petitioner under invoice No.2927980, dated 01-09-2009, for transportation from Patancheru to New Delhi. The petitioner, in turn, engaged a truck bearing registration No.H R 55 E 66901 on hire. The owner and the driver of the truck were stated to be Mr.Askok Kumar Singh of Gurgaon and Mr.Raj Singh. During the transit, the truck appears to have been intercepted in the early hours of 5th October, 2009 at Ichoda check post, Adilabad District, and detained with some forest produce by respondent Nos.3 and 4. In its affidavit, the petitioner specifically averred that as the above-mentioned material does not fall under the definition of forest produce, it has approached the Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad, for release of the same. It has further stated that in spite of its repeated requests, and showing the relevant material such as invoices and consignment note, the respondents have not released the material. Neither a counter-affidavit is filed nor any instructions are reported on behalf of the respondents. At the hearing, Sri V.Mohan Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the invoice raised by the consignor and consignment note prepared by the petitioner for the goods transported through the above-mentioned truck. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the petitioner’s representation, dated 15-09-2009, submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad. It is inter alia stated in the said representation that the above-mentioned material was booked by the manufacturer through the petitioner to be transported to Delhi International Airport and delivered to L&T Company Limited through the invoices mentioned therein. It is also stated that the petitioner has engaged the above-mentioned truck and loaded the material for transportation and that to its shock and surprise, it came to know that the said material was not delivered at the destination and that the same was detained along with certain forest produce at Ichoda check post. The petitioner made a request for release of the goods, as the same is not a forest produce liable for confiscation. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court, the judgment of the apex Court reported in Suresh Lohiya vs. State of Maharashtra and another[1], wherein it is held that any material which does not answer the description of forest produce is not liable for confiscation. The learned Counsel submitted that after filing of the Writ Petition, the manufacturer/consignor has got the seized material released and given a notice to the petitioner seeking recovery of damages. In view of this development, which has taken place during the pendency of the Writ Petition, no direction need be issued to the respondents. However, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the angulars etc., which were loaded in the truck seized by the respondents, were not liable for confiscation under Section 44 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967. It is only the timber or forest produce together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence, which are liable for such confiscation. As the consignment referred to above cannot be said to have been used for the purpose of committing the forest offence, the same ought to have been released without any delay. The petitioner is, however, entitled to contest the claim made by the manufacturer/consignor by availing appropriate remedies. Subject to the above findings and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.26337 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th July, 2010 lur [1] 1996 (2) ALD Criminal 656 (SC)