Rajendra Kumar Agarwal v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Dec 2004
- Bench
- B SUDERSHAN REDDY, M NARAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- A.P. Forest Act, 1967 s. 44(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Forest Range Officer, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR FORESTS The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy) The…
Judgment
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/11/2004 in WP No : 20999 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, S/o Dhanna Lal Agarwal, R/o Rebbana Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. AND
Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department, through its Sub Divisional Forest Officer and Authorised Officer, Luxettipet, Adilabad District.
The Forest Range Officer, Luxettipet, Adilabad District. ..... APPELLANT ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR FORESTS The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy) The learned single Judge relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs . K.KRISHNAN and SECTION FORESTOR Vs. MANSUR ALI KHAN, rightly refused to release the vehicle in question, seized in connection with the proceedings initiated under Section 44 (2) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”). As has been rightly observed by the learned single Judge, no exceptional case, as such, is made by the appellant herein for release of the said vehicle. It is not the question of power or jurisdiction of this Court to release the vehicle, but the question is of exercise of jurisdiction. Since no exceptional case, as such, is made out by the appellant herein for release of the vehicle, we are not inclined to take a different view other than the one taken by the learned single Judge. Writ appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed with the same direction to the respondents to complete the proceedings under Section 44 (22-A) of the Act initiated against the appellant within a period of three months from the date of the appellant submitting explanation to the show cause notice issued. It is needless to observe that the respondents shall not be influenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. ____________________________ B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. Date:22-12-2004 GS/KS __________________________ M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. To
1. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer and Authorised Officer, Forest Department, Luxettipet, Adilabad District.
2. The Forest Range Officer, Luxettipet, Adilabad District.
Two CCs to the G.P. for Forests, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T.)
2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Forest Act, 1967 — s. 44(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Dec 2004. The bench was B SUDERSHAN REDDY, M NARAYANA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.