HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Between:
WRIT APPEAL No.1347 OF 2014
DATED: 30.10.2014 The State of Andhra Pradesh and others And M/s.Inland World logistics … Appellants … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1347 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
With the consent of the parties, we dispose of the appeal finally dispensing with all formalities.
This appeal is directed against the order, dated 14.10.2014, by which, the learned trial Judge has been pleased to allow Writ Petition No.21820 of 2014 by directing release of the goods unconditionally. Having seen the various items of goods seized and taking the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge satisfied that the seizure was not justified.
Learned Government Pleader for Forests submits that the goods claimed by the writ petitioner were used as tools to cover or camouflage Red Sander logs in the vehicle. The writ petitioner says that those goods are independent and are not forest produce at all and vehicle used to the extent of 50% of the space thereof, was owned by somebody else, which is not known to it. Nothing is produced to show, who is the owner of the vehicle.
We have seen sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, which reads as follows:
“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 and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.”
It encompasses the varieties of materials or tools used in committing a forest offence. ‘Tools’ may be of anything else to commit an offence.
Learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the appellants has stated that the goods claimed by the writ petitioner were used as tools. We think this point cannot be brushed aside lightly. It does not appear that the learned trial Judge has taken care of this point, and in our view, it is obviously a debatable issue and it is left to be adjudicated by the authorized officer.
Now, the question is whether the goods should be released or not. If it is found after adjudication and considering the point that the goods claimed by the writ petitioner were used as ‘tools’ within the meaning of the aforesaid provision, seizure cannot be said to be unjustified. On assessing the extent of the prima facie case, we think that the following order will sub serve the interest of justice.
On furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the value of the goods and indemnity bond/personal bond covering balance 50% of the value, the goods must be released. This furnishing of bank guarantee is asked to be furnished as we find that the writ petitioner was at one time agreeable to furnish bank guarantee as recorded by the learned trial Judge. The authorized officer shall adjudicate the issue and before such adjudication, the contention of the writ petitioner that the goods are not liable to be seized may be taken up, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. If the writ petitioner’s contention is accepted, the bank guarantee shall be returned forthwith so also indemnity bond.
We accordingly, modify the order of the learned trial Judge. We make it clear that all the observations/findings of this Court as well as that of the learned trial Judge will not be binding or influencing factor on the authorized officer. All points are kept open.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
30th OCTOBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni