Telangana High Court
WP/33307/2010 of Smt.B.Rahamthunnisa Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh,rep.by its Principal on 29 December 2010
R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33307 of 2010 Date: 29.12.2010 Between : Smt. B.Rahamthunnisa. ….Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33307 of 2010
Between :
Date: 29.12.2010
Smt. B.Rahamthunnisa.
….Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Department of Forest & others.
….Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYWRIT PETITION No.33307 of 2010ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions byway f Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 2[nd]respondent/ Sub-Divisional Forest Officer in UDORNo.2/2010-11/KDR/PKD, dated 20.11.2010, rejecting theclaim of the petitioner for release of lorry bearing No.AP-03-X-7155, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claims that she is the owner of thelorry bearing No.AP-03-X-7155. The said lorry was seizedby the forest officials on the ground that it was being usedfor illegal transportation of 27 red sandal logs on 10[th] ofAugust 2010. Pursuant to the seizure, the matter isreported to the authorized officer-cum-Sub-DivisionalForest Officer, Penugonda, who is the authority under theA.P.Forest Act, 1967. The petitioner has filed arepresentation before the said authority, seeking forinterim release of vehicle on third party security, tilldisposal of the case. The request of the petitioner isrejected, by the impugned order.
It is the case of the petitioner that the lorry was beingused without her knowledge. The said plea of thepetitioner was not accepted by the authorized officer, who recorded a finding that such a plea is untrustworthy. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel forpetitioner that she is ready to give third party security forrelease of vehicle, in view of the serious allegations madeagainst the petitioner that the vehicle was being used fortransportation of 27 numbers of red sandal logs, and inview of the findings recorded by the authorized officer, I donot find any ground to entertain this writ petition. However, as it is stated that the confiscation proceedingsare pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writpetition with a direction to the respondents to dispose ofthe confiscation proceedings as expeditiously as possible,preferably within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
_____________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
29[th] December 2010
N.B:Issue C.C. in one week. (b/o) ajr