G RAJENDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, identical questions of fact and law arise. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) In the month of December, 1995, the Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal, alongwith the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad and other officials in the District, raided the residential premises of the petitioners and found that teak timber logs were stored at various places. On finding that the forest produce so found was not covered by any permit under the Rules framed under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'), cases were registered and the forest produce was transported to the Government Timber Depot, Khanapur under the cover of panchanama. The main allegation was that no permit, as required under Rule 2(3) of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Transit Rules') was obtained and that the petitioners violated Rule 2 of A.P. Teakwood Possession Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Teakwood Rules').

(3.) In the proceedings that were initiated under Section 44 of the Act, the petitioners pleaded that they have obtained permit from the competent authority under relevant provisions of law. It was contended that the Teakwood Rules do not apply to the facts of the case inasmuch as the area where the forest produce was found, is not within -15 kilometres from the reserve forest notified for the purpose of the Teakwood Rules. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, the authorized officer/ Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal, passed orders, dated 30.07.1997, directing confiscation of the seized forest produce.