IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12651 of 2009 Between: P.V.RAMACHANDRA REDDY S/o. Sri Rosi Reddy Annaiahgari Palle(V) Vemula Mandal, Kadapa Disrict .... PETITIONER AND 1 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (WL) Markapur, Prakasam District 2 The Forest Range Officer Y.Palem Range, Markapur(WL) Prakasam 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in directing the petitioner to furnish the Bank Guarantee for Rs 2,70,000/ and deed of Security by bank guarantee with the authorized Officer for interim custody of his tractor and trailer bearing No APO4H9613/9614 (Sonalika) belonging to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and void ab inito and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to accept 3rd party immovable Property security towards the interim custody of the tractor and trailer bearing No APO4H9613/9614 (Sonalika) to the petitioner pending disposal of the enquiry and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12651 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the 1st respondent-Divisional Forest Officer (WL), Markapur, Prakasam District directing the petitioner to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.2,70,000/- and deed of security by bank guarantee for interim custody of his tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04H 9613/9614 (SONALIKA), which was seized on the ground of its alleged involvement in a forest offence, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only immovable properties and that he has no means to furnish the bank guarantee as directed by the 1st respondent. It is further stated that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition imposed is onerous and the respondents ought to have accepted the third party security, which the petitioner is willing to furnish. Having heard the submissions of both the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. However, it is always open to the petitioner to make such a request before the first respondent, in which event, the same should be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the first respondent for modification of the condition imposed. If any such application is made, the first respondent shall receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such an application. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.06-07-2009 Note:- Issue C.C in 3 days (B/o) RAR THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12651 of 2009 DATED : 06-07-2009