IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 21918 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DHANANJAY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } ORAL ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the government dated 14- 09-2000 in directing the District Collector, Nizamabad, to take immediate action against the petitioners under the Preventive Detention Act, wherein the Divisional Forest Oﬃcer, Nizamabad, has lodged complaint in the police station concerned alleging that they had indulged in illicit transportation of teak timber using fake and forged permits from other divisions of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, the present writ petition is filed. This Court by order in W.P.M.P.No.27860 of 2000 dated 14-11-2000 passed the following order: “Notice. Interim suspension. It is made clear that the order of this Court suspending Govt.memo dt.14-09-2000 does not preclude the District Magistrate or any competent authority to take any action in accordance with law against petitioners either under the provisions of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Oﬀenders, Goondas Immoral Traﬃc Oﬀenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 or any other provisions of law, if there is suﬃcient material warrant detention order.” Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that despite the interim order of this Court leaving it open to the authorities to take action under the Preventive Detention Laws, if there was suﬃcient material warranting their detention, no orders of detention has been passed against the petitioners. Since more than eight years have elapsed and there is no material on record to show that any action has been taken, it would suﬃce if the interim orders of this Court were to be made absolute and accordingly in terms of the interim orders of this Court the writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances without costs. _______________ 27th August, 2008 SKM