IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17748 of 2006 Between: Sk.Mastan Pyarijan, s/o Baba Sahib, r/o 13-11-21/1, Kaki Street, Srikakulam Town and District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, department of Forests, Secretariat, Hyderabad rep., by Secretary. 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam Town & District. 3 Forest Range Officer, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring that the impugned order dated 25-07-2006 bearing Rc.No.O.R.No.54/2004/2005-A7 passed by the second respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and void and contrary to the order of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.24192 of 2005 and Writ Appeal No.677 of 2006 and consequently direct the second respondent to release the vehicle Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No.AP 30 T 5533 forthwith to the petitioner without any condition and pass suchother or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NALIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Sk.Mastan Pyarijan assailing the order dated 25.07.2006 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam Town & District-2nd respondent whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been asked to pay the compounding fee of Rs.47,775/- for release of the vehicle. This case has a chequered career. The petitioner is owner of lorry bearing registration No.AP 30T 5533. On 20.07.2004, the Forest Range Officer, Tekkali and Forest Section Officer, D.L.Puram inspected the said vehicle on N.H 5 road and seized the same on the ground that casurina stem wood was being carried without permit. A case under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 was registered and the vehicle together with Casuarina Stem wood was produced before the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.09.2004 was issued to the petitioner herein calling upon him to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 44 (2-A) of the Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation that he gave the lorry on hire to one Pappu Police, a resident of Rajarampuram on 19.07.2004 for transportation of 13 cmt of casurina stem wood. It is further stated in the explanation that he had no knowledge of registration of a crime against the vehicle. He made a representation on 22.07.2004 for release of the vehicle expressing his willingness to furnish security. He also stated that he never hired the vehicle to B.Trinadha Rao, whose name was shown in the seizure report as the owner of the seized produce. The Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam by order dated 6.10.2004 ordered for confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner questioned the order by filing an appeal before the II Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Srikakulam. The appeal filed by him came to be allowed by order dated 21.10.2005. The Forest Range Officer, Tekkali, The Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam and the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by the District Collector, Srikakulam filed WP No.24192 of 2005 assailing the order passed by the II Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court) Srikakulam. The writ petition ended in dismissal on 10.04.2006. The order passed in the writ petition came to be assailed in W.A.No.677 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal upholding the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.24192 of 2005. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal is as hereunder: “We have given serious thought to the argument of the learned Government Pleader, but have not felt impressed. Item (iii) of column IV of Schedule II enumerates various classes of timber, which are exempted from the provisions of the Act and the Rules in different revenue districts of the State. Casurina is exempted in all revenue districts of the State. Therefore, transportation of casuarinas firewood in the vehicle owned by the respondent would not, by itself, amount to forest offence and the appellate authority did not commit any illegality by quashing the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. During the course of hearing, we enquired from the learned Government Pleader as to what could be the cost of splitted casuarina firewood recovered from the vehicle of the respondent. In reply, the Government Pleader for Forests stated that the total cost of casuarinas firewood would not come to more than Rs.1,000/-. This shows that the State has been pursuing an extremely trifle case without any tangible reason. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.” After dismissal of the writ appeal, the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam proceeded to pass an order dated 25.07.2006 directing the petitioner to pay compounding fee of Rs.47,775/-. The relevant order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer reads as hereunder: “In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous is allowed and the impugned order with regard to confiscation of vehicle alone is set aside. In view of the above and in compliance to the order issued vide: 1)W.A.No.677/2006 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad dt.19.06.2006 2)WP No.24192 of 2005 of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Anhdhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dt.20.04.2006. 3)CMA No.20/2005 of Hon’ble IInd Additional District Judge(Fast Tract Court), Srikakulam, dated 21.10.2005. It is ordered for compounding at Rs.9555 x 5 = Rs.47,755/- (Rupees forty seven thousand seven hundred and seventy five only) and the vehicle and seizures are released on payment of compounding Fees. The receipt of proceedings should be acknowledged.” The order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer is under challenge in this writ petition. The respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the said casurina wood was transported from the Government Forest Land and therefore, it requires valid permit. It is further stated that the learned District Judge has passed orders and set aside the confiscating orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer only to the extent of vehicle concerned. The offence committed by the writ petitioner is by way of cutting the casurina stem wood. The leaned District Judge has set aside the confiscation of the vehicle owned with the writ petitioner but not the seizure of casurina stem wood. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge has given a categorical finding that the vehicle of the petitioner is not liable for confiscation and the said finding has been upheld by this Court in writ petition as well as in the writ appeal in which case directing the petitioner to pay the compounding fee is not legal and proper. Learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 supported the impugned order in the writ petition. In the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal a categorical finding has been given by the learned District Judge that the lorry of the petitioner is not liable for confiscation. The said finding has been upheld by this Court in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. Once the vehicle of the petitioner is not liable for confiscation, question of the petitioner paying compounding fee does not arise. Indisputably the forest produce transported in the lorry does not belonging to the petitioner. The compounding fee is to be paid by the person whose name was shown as the owner of the forest produce. Therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer-2nd respondent directing the petitioner to pay compounding fee cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs. _________ 13-08-2008 rkk