Rachagorlla Ayyappa Swamy & Anr. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Order

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to release the property, viz., transport vehicle Ashok Leyland ‘Dosth’ vide No.AP 39 TF 9692 and finished teak cot (6X6) which are the custody of 4th respondent / Forest Range Officer, Kannapuram, Koyyalagudem Mandal, Eluru District and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. a. The case of the petitioners is briefly, as follows: On 20.12.2024, the petitioner No.2 is transiting the teak cot (6X6) size to his cousin at Palakunta village, Buttaigudem Mandal, Eluru district through a vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TF 9692 of the petitioner No.1 from his village of Puliramannagudem of Buttaigudem Mandal. The respondents Nos.5 & 6 seized the vehicle along with finished teak cot on its way and kept them with the respondent No.4 without following the due process of law and registered a case in Cr.No. DOR No.12/2024-25 and kept in custody with the respondent No.4 vide Form - C, dated 20.12.2025, and further issued notice, dated

20.01.2025, to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.7 was the driver of the vehicle. The respondent No.5 has been calling the petitioners day-to-day to their office at Kannapuram promising to handover the seized items, i.e., vehicle and the cot and harassing them for their own reasons. b. The petitioner No.1 is using the vehicle on rent to earn income to sustain his family. The vehicle is hypothecated with finance. Unless the vehicle is run, it is difficult for the petitioner No.1 to maintain his family and pay the amount due to the financier. The vehicle and the cot are in 3 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 the illegal custody as the A.P. Forest Products Transit Rules, 1970 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1970’) are not applicable to the subject cot, as per the clarification given by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide Ref.No.15789/Law/97, dated 07.05.1997, based on the clarification given by the government pleader for Forests of this High Court. Carrying finished wooden goods is not an offence under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short, ‘the Act, 1967’), as per the clarification given by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh based on the decision of the High Court cited supra. Hence, this writ petition was filed to release the vehicle and the cot.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per the clarification given, cot is not a forest produce and the provisions of the Rules, 1970 have no application and as such, the seizure itself is illegal. He further submitted that the petitioners filed document showing the permission given to M.S.R.Murthy for the logs mentioned in the permit and corresponding e-way bill, along with the bill of Vijaya Durga Sai Timber Depot and Furniture Works, Koyyalagudem, Andhra Pradesh. Even then, the cot of the petitioner No.2 and the vehicle of the petitioner No.1 were illegally seized. He further submitted that an old cot used as a household item is exempt from the Rules, 1970 and there is no need to show any permit under any provision of law.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, placed on record written instructions of the respondent No.3 / The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Jangareddigudem, Eluru District, vide Letter Rc.No. DOR No.12/2024-25/KNP, dated 27.10.2025, and submitted that the cot as well as the vehicle were lawfully seized as the persons in possession failed to produce any valid document or transit 4 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 permit as required under the Act, 1967 or the Rules, 1970 and a case was also registered. She further submitted that several notices, dated

20.01.2025, 14.02.2025, 03.03.2025 and 01.09.2025 were issued to the petitioners to attend the enquiry and produce the documents in support of their claim, but, they failed to respond or appear before the competent authority. She further submitted that in W.P.No.13286 of 2025, this Court, by order, dated 11.08.2025, directed the office of the respondent No.3 to consider the reply, dated 26.02.2025 of the petitioners and examine the applicability of the PCCF circular ref. No.15789/Law/97, dated 07.05.1997, and pass appropriate orders and thereby, a reasoned order, dated 31.08.2025 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners. She further submitted that the intention of the circular, dated 07.05.1997, is limited exclusively to face veneers, i.e., thin sheets of wood peeled or sliced from logs used in plywood manufacture and not to any and all finished timber articles. Therefore, it is not a circular of general exemption in respect of the Rules, 1970 and that the petitioners cannot fall back on such circular to a wooden cot which is a finished teak furniture item. She further submitted that under Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 1970, no forest produce shall be moved into, from, or within the State without a permit, unless specifically exempted, but, no such exemption as under the circular exists for furniture articles made from teak wood, and that the petitioners suddenly introduced the reference to the permit under the Rules at a belated stage as an afterthought intending to mislead the Court and evade consequences. She submitted that the vehicle and the cot are under the legal custody of the Forest department as per Section 44(2)(b) of the Act, 1967 and that the present petition is only frivolous with false 5 BSB, J W.P.No.28265 of 2025 allegation. She further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Section Forestor and Another Vs. Mansur Ali Khan1, wherein it was held that where a forest offence is registered and confiscation proceedings are initiated under the provisions of the Forest Act, the jurisdiction to deal with the seized property, including any vehicle or forest produce, rests solely with the Authorized Officer under the Forest Act, 1967, and not with the Magistrate or any authority. She further submitted that there is no proof that the cot was made out of the wood shown in the permit, a copy of which is annexed to the petition and that the petitioners have changed their version from time to time by stating that the cot was made out of the wood for which there was already a permit granted and also stating that the cot is old one already in use and was being transported and therefore, an old cot does not require a permit. Therefore, she contended that the petitioners are not taking a uniform stand and changing versions in order to get a relief. Therefore, she requested to dismiss the petition.

5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer Section 44 of the Act, 1967, which reads as follows: “44. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereupon:- (1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles, machinery and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.