IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10784 of 2008 Between: M. Paidiraju S/o. M. Simhachalam H.No.6-6-434, Gandhi Nagar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 FAC Divisional Forest Officer cum Authorised Officer Divisional Forest Office, Bhadrachalam (North) Division, Khammam District. 2 Secretary to Government, (Forest Department) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.DEVADAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to release the vehicle bearing registration No.AP20 U 8777 seized in connection with various offences. The petitioner’s vehicle, bearing the above-mentioned registration number, along with certain teak logs was seized on 11-01-2008, and proceedings under Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) were initiated by respondent No.1. The petitioner averred that in pursuance of Show Cause Notice dated 23-01-2008, issued under Section 44 of the Act, he appeared on 27-02-2008 for enquiry, and respondent No.1 adjourned the enquiry to 15-03-2008. He further pleaded that on the said day, respondent No.1 examined the petitioner and his driver but did not conclude the enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has not completed the enquiry, and has detained the said vehicle, without releasing the same, in spite of his request in that regard. Inasmuch as on the petitioner’s own showing, the enquiry is at the advanced stage, I am not inclined to give any direction to the respondents to release the seized vehicle. Instead, in my view, interest of justice would be served if respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If respondent No.1 fails to pass a final order within the time stipulated, he shall release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the latter furnishing appropriate security to his satisfaction. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.14074 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. _____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 14th May, 2008 LUR