IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11240 of 2003 Between: Warangal Commercial and Chits, rep.by its Managing Partner Gunda Srinivas, S/o Srihari, R/o Bhavani Nagar., Hanamkonda., Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Authorized Officer and Dist.Forest Officer, Warangal North Division., Warangal., Warangal District. 2 Forest Range Officer., Warangal. 3 Mushani Chandrakala w/o Chandraiah, Major r/o Huzurabad., Warangal 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 issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by setting aside the impugned order dated 24-03- 2002 passed by the First respondent by conﬁscating the DCM van bearing No.MH15B -339, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11240 OF 2003 ORDER: Third respondent is owner of motor transport vehicle – DCM van No.MH15B-339. She hypothecated the same to petitioner, which is engaged in ﬁnance business under licence issued by Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Hanamkonda. DCM van was seized on 09.09.2002 by forest oﬃcials as it was found loaded with 12 sheeshan logs of 1.2687 cmt valued at Rs.24,763/-. At the time of seizure, husband of third respondent was driver. After receiving a report, ﬁrst respondent initiated action under Section 44(2-A) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (the Act, for brevity) for conﬁscation of vehicle and the produce. A show cause notice was issued to third respondent. She along with her husband submitted explanation denying any knowledge of involvement of the vehicle in the alleged oﬀence. After conducting enquiry, ﬁrst respondent passed orders on 05.11.2002 conﬁscating the vehicle and also passed orders for compounding of oﬀence for Rs.75,000/-. The forest produce was conﬁscated. Third respondent approached the High Court and ﬁled W.P.No.22204 of 2002. The same was dismissed on 07.11.2002. As third respondent did not pay compounding fee, a notiﬁcation was issued in ‘Eenadu’ daily before passing ﬁnal orders. In this writ petition, order passed by ﬁrst respondent is challenged on the ground that the same is violative of Section 44(2-B) of the Act. A counter aﬃdavit is filed opposing the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on Section 44(2-B) of the Act and submits that in the absence of any notice to ﬁnance company, conﬁscation is not sustainable. The submission is devoid of any merit. Admittedly, the vehicle is owned by third respondent and at the time of seizure of the vehicle, her husband was driver. Therefore, notice issued to third respondent is suﬃcient compliance with Section 44(2-B) of the Act. A reference may be made to Ashok Leyland Finance Limited v Government of A.P.[1], wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down as under. Since the Forest Act does not deﬁne the term “owner” and since Section 44(2-C) of the forest Act refers to the owner of the vehicle, it is appropriate that the deﬁnition of the “owner” deﬁned under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be kept in mind in construing the provisions of sub- section (2-C) of Section 44 of the Act. If it is so kept in mind, the ﬁnancier cannot be considered to be the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of Section 44(2- C) of the Act. Therefore, the ﬁnancier, solely on the ground that the vehicle was used for transporting the contraband forest produce without his knowledge or connivance, cannot seek the release of the vehicle irrespective of the fact whether the forest oﬀence was committed with the knowledge or connivance of the hirer. Further, the provisions of sub-section (2-C) makes it abundantly clear that the burden to prove to the satisfaction of the Authorised Oﬃcer that the vehicle was used in carrying the contraband forest produce without his knowledge or connivance is on the owner of the vehicle and not on the Authorised Oﬃcer. Therefore, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is absolutely no legal evidence produced by the Authorised Oﬃcer to show that the vehicle was used for carrying the contraband forest produce with the knowledge and connivance of the hirer or the financier. A reference may also be made to a decision of this Court i n Mirza Ramza Ali v Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad[2], wherein this Court considered the validity of conﬁscation order passed under Section 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 without notice to ﬁnancier, who was owner as per Hire Purchase Agreement. After referring to relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court laid down as under. A reading of sub-section (5) of Section 51 further makes it clear that the name of the ﬁnancier cannot be shown as owner of the vehicle unless and until such person satisﬁes the registering authority that he has taken possession of the vehicle owing to default of the registered owner, registering authority after issuing notice to the registered owner to cancel the certiﬁcate and issue a fresh certiﬁcate of registration in the name of the financier. Thus, for all purposes, a person who is in possession of the vehicle or hirer whose name is shown as registered owner can alone be treated as owner. The limited protection given to the owner is as contained in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The position is not different even in the Hire Purchase Act, 1972. In view of the above two precedents, the point taken is without any merit. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 10.11.2008. pln [1] 2001 (3) ALT 463 (DB) [2] 2003 (3) ALD 700 = 2003 (3) ALT 562