The Principal Secretary vs Ch Linga Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 3118 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                AND

   THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                 WRIT APPEAL No.407 of 2022


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

      Heard Ms. Pramada, learned Government Pleader for

Forests appearing for the appellants and Mr. K.Anantha Rao,

learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Respondents had filed the related writ petition for

release of their vehicle (tractor bearing No.AP-01-S-1545). The

writ petition was filed contending that though the vehicle was

confiscated by the forest authorities (appellants herein) on

18.06.2021 for contravention of certain provisions of the

Telangana State Forest Act, 1967; Wild Life Protection Act,

1972; Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act, 1984; and Biological Diversity Act, 2002,

the same was set aside by the IX Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kamareddy vide order dated 06.01.2022 in

Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2021. Despite such order passed by 2 HCJ & SNJ W.A.No.407 of 2022

the Criminal Appellate Court, the vehicle of the respondents

was not released by the appellants.

3. Learned Single Judge considered the judgment and

order dated 06.01.2022 of the Criminal Appellate Court and

also observed that against such judgment and order, no appeal

or revision was filed by the appellants. In the circumstances,

there could not have been any valid reason not to release the

vehicle of the petitioners.

4. Today in the hearing, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that appellants have preferred a criminal

revision petition before this Court being Criminal Revision Case

No.54 of 2022. On a query by the Court, she submits that no

stay order has been passed by the revisional Court.

5. In the circumstances and on due consideration, we

are of the view that the decision rendered by the learned Single

Judge calls for no interference.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that even now the appellants have not released the

above vehicle of the respondents.

                                 3                       HCJ & SNJ
                                                W.A.No.407 of 2022

7. More than two months have gone by since the

learned Single Judge had passed the aforesaid order. Merely

because a revision petition has been filed, it does not mean that

appellants would not comply with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. That being the position, we do not find

any merit in the writ appeal. Consequently, we direct the

appellants to forthwith release the vehicle of the respondents

being a tractor bearing registration No.AP-01-S-1545.

8. Subject to the above direction, Writ Appeal is

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 28.06.2022 KL