THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28398 OF 2009 DATED 15TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN Y.Nageswara Rao …Petitioner And The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.28398 OF 2009 O R D E R The petitioner’s Commander Jeep bearing registration No. AP- 31U-7623 was apprehended by the Forest Department officials on 16.07.2009 with a load of Maddi rough squares (2 Nos.) and a new rose wood cot. The driver failed to produce a transit permit for transporting these goods and the vehicle along with the forest produce was accordingly seized. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 05.08.2009, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Yeleswaram Sub-Division, Yeleswaram, having issued notice to the petitioner and enquired into the matter, directed confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle. It was the case of the petitioner before the said authority that the offence was committed without his knowledge. Aggrieved by the said confiscation order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry. The said appeal met with failure, when the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, rejected the same by order dated 07.08.2009 holding that he did not see any reason to interfere with the confiscation order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. Though Sri G.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the Full Bench Judgments of this Court i n SUB-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHENNUR V/s. VIJAY B.GULATI[1] and GOVERNMENT OF A.P. THROUGH FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BURGUMPAD V/s. DINDU KNAKAMMA[2] and the Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in ABDUL KHADER V/s. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RAYACHOTI, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT[3], the Judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL V/s. MAHUA SARKAR[4] is at variance with the ratio laid down by this Court in the above decisions in so far as fulfilling the requirements of Section 44(2-C) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1967’) is concerned. It is relevant to note that the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Yeleswaram, issued the confiscation order in Form-E under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969. Neither the rule nor the form had application to the instant case as the officer did not compound the offence but on the other hand, directed the confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle. The confiscation was therefore one effected under Section 44(2-A) of the Act of 1967. The appeal entertained by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry, is therefore to be construed to be one under Section 44(2-D) of the said Act. The petitioner is thus provided with a further remedy under Section 44(2-E) of the Act of 1967 to the District Court concerned. The said remedy was to be availed by him within thirty days from the date of communication of the order under Section 44(2- D) of the Act of 1967. However, as the authorities committed an error in applying the correct provision and the petitioner was pursuing this litigation before this Court he cannot be non-suited from availing the further remedy on the ground of limitation at this stage. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy under Section 44(2-E) of the Act of 1967 instead of approaching this Court by way of the present writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy under Section 44(2-E) of the Act of 1967. In the event of the petitioner choosing to do so, the District Court concerned shall entertain the same without reference to the time period stipulated in the said provision, keeping in mind the mistake committed by the officials in quoting the wrong provision and the fact that the petitioner was pursuing this litigation before this Court. Miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 15TH JULY, 2011 PGS/VGSR [1] 1997 (6) ALT 238 (FB) [2] 1998 (5) ALT 171 (FB) [3] 2000 (6) ALT 754 [4] (2008) 12 SCC 763