IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.11521 of 2003 Between: Shaik Chand Basha. … Petitioner And The Forest Range Officer, Rapur & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents : GP for Forest This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11521 of 2003 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 18.11.2002 in CMA.No.8 of 1998 on the file of the District Judge, Nellore and also order dated 10.12.1997 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.AP 10/T- 1027. On 01.05.1996, the Forest Range Officer, Rapur, along with the staff proceeded to Kaluvoy village to watch the lorries proceeding towards Nellore. On 02.05.1996, when they stopped the abovementioned lorry, the driver and the cleaner fled away from the lorry. When checked, the lorry was found to have been containing 180 red sander logs weighing about 4470 kgs covered under a tarpaulin. The authorized officer initiated proceedings under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short, “the Act”) and after considering the material on record directed confiscation of the lorry by his order dated 10.12.1997. This order was questioned in CMA.No.8 of 1998 in the District Court, Nellore, and the said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge by order dated 18.11.2002. At the hearing, Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the petitioner does not have knowledge of commission of forest offence and therefore the lorry was not liable for confiscation. Having carefully gone through the orders of the authorized officer and also of the District Judge, I am of the view that the confiscation orders do not warrant interference by this Court. A perusal of the record reveals that it was neither the pleaded case of the petitioner that she had taken all the reasonable and necessary precautions to prevent misuse of the vehicle in question nor she adduced any evidence to that effect. Therefore, by mere plea that she had no knowledge, the petitioner cannot invoke the benefit of the provisions of sub-section 2 (c) of Section 44 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the lorry was released, subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs.1,50,000/-. He also submitted that since the bank guarantee is available, the recovery of the value of the lorry may be confined to the value of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. The learned counsel is unable to state whether the petitioner kept the bank guarantee valid till date. Learned Government Pleader for Forests, on instructions, submitted that the present value of the lorry is estimated at Rs.1,77,000/-. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to restrict the recovery of the value of the lorry to the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, if the same is valid as on today. If the bank guarantee is not valid, the respondent shall be free to recover the value of the lorry without limiting the same to the bank guarantee by its sale. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3592 of 2003 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.10.2009 ES