HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25884 of 2002 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 31.10.2001, issued by the 1st respondent- Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Warangal, directing the 3rd respondent to deduct an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the bills payable to the petitioner, and the order of the 2nd respondent-Conservator of Forests, dated 03.06.2002, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein was executing some civil contracts of the Scheduled Caste Corporation with regard to construction of a school building at Narsampet in Warangal District. The Flying Squad Division of the Forest Department, Warangal District, have made an inspection at the construction works carried on by the petitioner and others, and a case was registered against the petitioner/contractor in POR.No.2060/83, dated 10th July 2001, on the ground that when the inspection was made, no proof was produced by the petitioner with regard to grant of permits for utilization of timber in constructing the school building. Further, cases were also registered against three more contractors by name Sri P.Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, Sri N.Manohar Reddy and Sri A.Madhava Reddy for using timber in the construction work. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Warangal, has passed orders, dated 31.10.2001, directing the 3rd respondent to deduct an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the bills payable to the petitioner, basing on the compounding orders passed by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Warangal Circle, Warangal, mainly on the ground that he did not sign the compounding statement, and as such, the directions issued by the Divisional Forest Officer to the 3rd respondent-Executive Engineer, are illegal, as the same were issued, based on the compounding orders, which were passed without any statement filed by the petitioner as per the Compounding Rules framed under the A.P.Forest Act, 1967. Even the appellate authority, without recording any valid reason, by simply stating that there are no reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, rejected the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he did not make any application to compound the offence, but only on the statement of one Sri T.Prabhakar Rao, who has nothing to do with the contracts executed by him, the orders of compounding were passed. It is his case that as much as he did not apply for compounding the offence registered against him, the 3rd respondent ought not to have addressed any letter to deduct an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs payable from the bills of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any event, such orders should not have been passed without conducting any inquiry, without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity. 4. This writ petition was admitted as early as on 2nd of January 2003, and is pending for the last about six years. No counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent- Executive Engineer of S.C.Corporation, but the counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Flying Squad, Warangal have found that teak timber was being used in the construction works carried out by the petitioner and three other contractors. When it is enquired with the person available at the construction work i.e. Sri T.Prabhakar about permission to use such timber in construction work, it is replied that there was no such permit available with him. It is stated that based on such an inspection, cases were registered against the contractors i.e. the petitioner herein and three other persons namely Sri P.Laxmi Narsimha Rao, Sri N.Manohar Reddy and Sri A.Madhava Rao, who have constructed the hostel buildings, school buildings and kitchen-cum-dining hall etc., and the 3rd respondent was addressed, intimating about registration of cases. It is stated that among the contractors who were executing the works, one Sri P.Laxmi Narsimha Rao has admitted his offence and paid the compounding fee, but the petitioner and one other contractor by name Sri A.Madhava Rao, have not responded and not paid the compounding fee. It is stated that as the contractors were involved in commission of forest offence by using teak wood in construction of hostel building at Narsampet, the 1st respondent has addressed the 3rd respondent, requesting to deduct an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the bills payable to the petitioner, which was remitted by respondent No.3 vide Challan No.4068, dated 16.12.2002. However, in paragraph 5 of the counter, it is stated that the petitioner did not approach the 1st respondent for compounding the offence, but the Flying Squad, at the time of inspection, recorded the statement of one Mr.T.Prabhakar Rao, who is the partner of one Mr.Y.Kishan Rao i.e. the petitioner herein, and as such, a notice was given to respondent No.3 to hold the petitioner responsible for the said offence, but the petitioner has never responded. 5. To compound the offences registered for violation of the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, there are separate set of rules titled as “Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969”, framed under Section 68 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, an inquiry into a forest offence shall be held by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Range Officer or Forester. As per Rule 5, every accused who expresses his willingness to have the offence compounded as provided in Rule 4, shall forthwith give a written undertaking in that regard in Form-D. The prescribed format of Form-D reads as under : “ FORM-D Compounding Statement [See Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969] I, …………………… son of ……………… resident of ……… being accused for …………………….. forest offence hereby undertake of my own free will to pay compensation under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969. 2. Should I fail to remit the amount of compensation imposed, the same may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue as provided in the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. 3. I also clearly understand that compounding of the offence by the competent authority under the rules is discretionary and my willingness to pay compensation or payment made in anticipation of compounding order does not prevent the competent authority to decide a different course of action. Particulars : 1. Name of the accused : 2. Father’s Name : 3. Permanent address : 4. Temporary address : 5. Particulars of offences under investigation : 6. Where immovable properties situated, if any : 7. Signature of the accused : Date: Signature of the witnesses : (1) Address: (2) Address: Name, designation and signature of the Forest Officer receiving this Statement. Date: " 6. From a reading of the provisions contained under Rules 4 and 5, and the prescribed Form in Form-D, it is clear that the forest offence can be compounded under Rule 5 of the Compounding Rules, only in the event of giving a statement by the accused for compounding the offence. I have perused the record. From the records, it is clear that as per the offence report, case is registered only against the petitioner/contractor for violation of provisions contained in Section 20 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967. Petitioner/Kishan Rao is shown as the sole accused and no other person’s name is shown. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is clearly stated that one Sri T.Prabhakar Rao has nothing to do with the petitioner, and he is not concerned with the contracts being executed by him. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the said person is the partner of petitioner, no material is placed before this Court to show that work was executed through a Partnership Firm and Sri T.Prabhakar Rao, on whose statement the offence was alleged to have been compounded, is a partner in the said Firm. Further, from the records also, it is evident that the case is registered only against the petitioner/contractor as an individual, in which event, it is not understandable as to on what basis the compounding orders are passed in the absence of any statement from the accused, as required under the rules. The impugned order, dated 31.10.2001, issued by the Divisional Officer, is solely based on the compounding order, which was passed basing on the statement of one T.Prabhakar Rao, but not the petitioner/accused. Even the appellate authority, who is the Conservator of Forests, before whom the petitioner has expressed his grievance against the order, dated 31.10.2001, did not record any reasons while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, except stating that there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. From the proceedings issued and the way the case is handled, it is ex-facie clear that it is a case where the respondent-authorities have not applied their mind in pursuing the offence registered against the petitioner. As much as there is no statement furnished by the petitioner for compounding the offence as required under the Rules, the order, dated 31.10.2001, passed by the 1st respondent, is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. Even the 2nd respondent-Conservator of Forests did not consider the case in proper perspective and simply confirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Forest Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the amount, which is recovered from the bills of the petitioner, is to be refunded to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Proceedings, dated 31.10.2001, issued in Proceedings Offence File No.51/FSP/2001-2002 by the 1st respondent- Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Warangal, and the further orders, dated 03.06.2002, issued in R.C.No.11823/A/2001/M12 by the 2nd respondent- Conservator of Forests, are hereby quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to refund an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only), which was recovered from the bills of the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st March 2009. ajr