THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.292 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. K.Anantha Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Malugari Sudharshan, learned Government
Pleader for Forest Department representing the respondents.
2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to furnish security of fixed deposit to the extent of Rs. 4 lakhs.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in confiscating the tractor of the appellant bearing registration No.TS 17 T 1979 under Section 44(2-B) of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967.
2 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.292 of 2023
4. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that as per allegation of the respondents, tractor of the appellant was seized by the forest officials on the ground that it was used to plough forest land and also in transporting firewood from the forest. Initially, the tractor was seized whereafter it was confiscated by respondent No.3 under Section 44(2-B) of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967. Assailing the same, appellant filed the related writ petition.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Forest had submitted before the learned Single Judge on the basis of written instructions that appellant's tractor was involved not only in the ploughing of forest land but also in removing 15 cart loads of forest produce. Therefore, this was a forest offence, for which the tractor was rightly confiscated.
6. Learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the rival parties observed that the tractor was seized in the year 2021. Therefore, a direction was issued to 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.A.No.292 of 2023 respondent Nos.3 and 4 to release the tractor subject to the following conditions:
1. appellant to furnish security of fixed deposit of Rs.4 lakhs;
2. appellant to furnish an undertaking that she would not transfer or change the nature of the tractor; and
3. she will not use the tractor for committing any forest offence in future.
7. While disposing of the writ petition, learned Single Judge further observed that if the tractor gets involved in similar offence in future, it would be liable to seizure forthwith.
8. Before us, learned counsel for the appellant submits that directing the appellant to furnish fixed deposit of Rs.4 lakhs as security is on the higher side and causing hardship to the appellant.
4 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.292 of 2023
9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that because of commission of forest offence, a criminal case has been registered. It is therefore necessary that some security should be furnished by the appellant.
10. Be that as it may, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the quantum of fixed deposit to be furnished as security is reduced from Rs.4 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh.
11. While maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge, more particularly paragraph 5 of the order dated 02.11.2022, we modify the direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellant to furnish security by way of fixed deposit to be limited to Rs.1 lakh. Rest of the order remains as it is.
12. Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
5 HCJ & NTRJ
W.A.No.292 of 2023
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 09.03.2023 KL