CHINTALA ANJANEYULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the confiscation order passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem in proceedings RC No.1678/95/S7, dated 16-09-2000 confiscating the Petitioner's lorry bearing No.AEK 8051 and confirmed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam in CMA No.33 of 2000 dated 19-01-2006 and quash the same.

(2.) Petitioners filed the affidavit in support of the writ petition stating that the husband of the 1st Petitioner was owner of a lorry bearing No.AEK 8051 and when the said lorry was coming from Manuguru to Jaggaiahpet with the load of coal driven by the driver, the respondents seized the said vehicle on 20-04-1995 on the ground that the said lorry was carrying 10 logs of teakwood. The owner filed W.P.8844 of 1995 before this court for release of the vehicle and an order was passed on 27-04-1995 granting interim custody of the vehicle pending enquiry before the Respondent on furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly the lorry was released by the Respondent by order RC.No.1678/95/S7, dated 09-05- 1995. Though the Respondent booked a case vide POR No.1/5-95, dated 21-04-1995, the husband of the 1st Petitioner did not receive any show-cause notice for a long time and it was assumed that the case was dropped. But, after three (3) years a show-cause notice was issued on 29-04-1998 to which he submitted his explanation. An enquiry notice dated 27-06-2000 was received by the husband of the 1st Petitioner on 05-07-2000 fixing the date of enquiry as 15-07-2000 which was postponed to 18-08-2000 and on the said date the husband of the 1st Petitioner was present and his Counsel was not present as he was held up in District Court and on that ground he sought time to next day. The Counsel for the husband of the 1st Petitioner filed a petition on 06-09-2000 seeking fixation of a date for enquiry to cross-examine the witnesses and without passing orders on the said petition, the Divisional Forest Officer passed orders of confiscation in Rc.No.1678/95/S7, dated 16-09-2000 and the same was communicated to the Petitioners on 23-09-2000. Another letter was issued in Rc.No.1678/95/S7 dated 21-09-2000 rejecting the request of the Counsel for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that the Assistant Conservator of Forests is the competent authority and the Divisional Forest Officer is not competent as per Section 44(2) of the A.P. Forest Act,1967 ( for brevity "the Act") and the order rejecting the request for cross- examination of witnesses was passed after passing the order of confiscation and hence principles of natural justice were violated. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, the husband of the 1st Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Principal District Judge, Khammam. It was numbered as CMA 33 of 2000 but the said Appeal was dismissed on 19-01-2006 confirming the order of confiscation.

(3.) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent stating that the lorry bearing No.AEK 8051 was carrying illicit timber under the cover of coal and while the vehicle was passing the check-post at Murredu at about 8.00 a.m. on 20-04-1995 and when the forest officials tried to check the lorry load, the driver of the vehicle picked up speed and sped away without stopping at check- post. The Forest Officials followed the lorry, overtaken it and stopped at Julurpadu village of Khammam District. The driver failed to produce the transport permit for the timber found in the vehicle. The order of confiscation was passed by the competent authority under Section 44(1) of the Act. The owner of the lorry neither produced any witnesses nor submitted any documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the authorized officer to the effect that illegal transportation of forest produce was without his knowledge or connivance or his agent or the person in-charge of the vehicle. The order of confiscation was passed after taking into consideration all the aspects and giving an opportunity to the owner of the vehicle. The owner attended the enquiry on 15- 07-2000 but did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses and the Advocate for the Petitioner was absent on that day. It was stated that maximum opportunity was given to the Petitioner under Section 44(2-B) of the Act before passing the confiscation orders by the authorized officer. Even though the show-cause notice was issued after three (3) years no loss was caused to the Petitioner since the lorry was released on a bank guarantee on orders of this court. The orders were passed by the District Court, Khammam on 19-01-2006 in Appeal confirming the orders of confiscation after hearing both sides and hence the orders were correct.