THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITOIN No.18381 of 2011 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1131 of 2011 Date: 14.09.2011 W.P.No.18381 of 2011 : Between : B. Venkateswar Reddy … Petitioner and The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents C.C.No.1131 of 2011 : IN RE…… S. Ramesh, IFS, Divisional Forest Officer (Deputy Conservator of Forests), Warangal South Division, Hanamkonda, Warangal. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITOIN No.18381 of 2011 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1131 of 2011 COMMON ORDER : The above writ petition has been filed complaining the action of the respondents, in particular the 3rd respondent- Divisional Forest Officer (Deputy Conservator of Forests), Warangal South Division, in not releasing the petitioner’s Lorry bearing No.AP 24X 3355 inspite of compounding the offence by his proceedings No.1225/2011/S5, dated 2.5.2011, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it was stated that the order dated 2.5.2011 is not communicated to the petitioner, thereby it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled for release of the vehicle. The petitioner disputed the said fact. Therefore, this Court called for the records and noticed that the said proceedings were, in fact, communicated to the petitioner. On noticing the said fact, this Court was of the view that the 3rd respondent deliberately misled this Court and issued Form-I notice for appearance of the 3rd respondent. 3. Pursuant to Form-I notice issued by this Court, the 3rd respondent-Divisional Forest Officer (Deputy Conservator of Forests), Warangal South Division, was present and made an attempt to justify his action. As per the directions of this Court to file an affidavit explaining the discrepancies pointed out, he has filed a further affidavit stating as follows: “It is humbly submitted that while filing the counter affidavit it was learnt by me through the office that the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioners, on the same, I made my submission in the counter that the orders were not communicated to the petitioners. But later, when the Hon’ble Court pointed out in the records, I verified and realized that the orders which I communicated to Forest Range Officer was already dispatched to the petitioners from his office. It is most humbly submitted that under the mistake of fact I have said in my counter that the orders were not communicated to the petitioners. I deeply apologise and I seek the pardon of this Hon’ble Court to kindly consider that it was not willfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court it was under the misunderstanding of the communication of the impugned order.” It is, however, stated that the vehicle has already been released. 4. From the aforesaid averments, it is evident that the 3rd respondent failed to exercise due diligence while making a statement of fact in the counter affidavit. 5. However, since the vehicle has already been released, no orders are required in the writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. 6. Consequently, I am not inclined to proceed with the contempt case and the same is accordingly closed. But as the 3rd respondent has not exercised due diligence in making a statement of fact, he is let off with a warning to be careful in future. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 14.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITOIN No.18381 of 2011 and CONTEMPT CASE No.1131 of 2011 14.09.2011 (Msr)