HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22726 of 2011 Date:11.08.2011 Between: Panyam Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Forest Range Officer, Rudhravaram Range, Rudhravaram, Kurnool District and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Amarnath Reddy Counsel for Respondents : AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner’s tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 27-F-5047 and AP 27-F-5048, respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the said tractor and trailer. I have heard Sri K.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner’s tractor and trailer were seized on 12.01.2011 by the forest officials on the allegation that the same were found transporting 23 pieces of NAREPI timber without permits. The petitioner has filed a private complaint against the forest officials in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Allagadda, which led to registration of F.I.R.No.13 of 2011 on 29.01.2011 at Sirivella Police Station, Kurnool, for the offences under Sections 429 IPC and 3(i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner, thereafter, applied to respondent No.1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for the details of the seizure. In response thereto, respondent No.2 replied to the petitioner on 23.04.2011 on the reason for seizure of the tractor and trailer. It is stated therein that following the seizure of the tractor and trailer, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing confiscation of the seized vehicle. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that so far, his client has not received the alleged show cause notice and that the respondents have been simply keeping the seized tractor along with the trailer. In my opinion, whether the show cause notice was served on the petitioner or not, he is entitled to apply to the competent authority under Section 44 of the Act for release of the seized tractor and trailer pending the completion of the confiscation proceedings. Admittedly, no such application has been filed by the petitioner so far. Unless the petitioner first approaches the competent authority with application for release of the seized tractor and trailer, no cause for him to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition would arise. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as pre- mature, with liberty to the petitioner to make an application before respondent No.2 for release of the tractor and trailer. If such an application is filed, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.27784 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11thAugust, 2011 DR