HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.17277 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.AHK 565, covered by a public carrier permit, valid till 2015. The vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent-Forest Range Officer, Sathupally, Khammam District on 08-01-2011 when it was found carrying fuel wood from reserve forest without valid permit. The petitioner states that he is not concerned with the load. He further states that his vehicle was engaged by one Bobbili Sanjeeva Rao, who had a valid permit for transporting the produce. 2. It appears that the permit held by B.Sanjeeva Rao was fake and a complaint to that effect was registered in F.I.R.No.81 of 2011, dated 02-06-2011 against him and one Md.Moulana, retired Deputy Plantation Manager. The investigation in that regard is pending. The petitioner being the owner of the vehicle approached 2nd respondent- Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam, by filing a petition dated 26-04- 2011 seeking release of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent has not passed any orders on the said application. The petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition seeking release of the vehicle. 3. A perusal of the F.I.R.No.81 of 2011, dated 02-06-2011, shows that the owner of the forest produce, B.Sanjeeva Rao, obtained forged permit from Md. Moulana, retired Deputy Plantation Manager, and the vehicle was carrying the produce accompanied by the said permit. 4. Therefore, it appears that there is no allegation made against the petitioner showing his complicity in the offence. At any rate, his involvement will have to be decided in the regular enquiry under the provisions of the Act. 5. Indisputably, the vehicle was seized on 08-01-2011 and considerable time has elapsed. Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity ‘the Act’) provides that if the owner of a vehicle proves to the satisfaction of the Forest Range Officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the produce without his knowledge, and after taking all reasonable necessary precautions against misuse, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation. Further under Section 59 of the Act, the offence committed can also be got compounded in the manner provided therein. 6. Since considerable time has elapsed, no useful purpose will be served by detaining the vehicle any longer. Having regard to the facts of this case and the aforesaid provisions of law, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to release the vehicle bearing Regn. No.AHK 565 in favour of the petitioner subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall deposit a sum equivalent to the value of the vehicle as assessed by the 2nd respondent. 2. He shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not alienate or otherwise create any encumbrance of vehicle, and produce the same as and when required by the 2nd respondent. 3. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the result of the final enquiry. 7. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 23 -06-2011 Note: Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o. Kvr