Allowed

Ch. Linga Reddy v. The Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Apr 2022WP/10225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging the refusal of forest officials to release a tractor confiscated in a case regarding wildlife prosecution after the criminal appeal court set aside the confiscation proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to comply with the judgment of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 06.01.2022 and return the tractor to Petitioner No. 2 on furnishing of surety.

Ch. Linga Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10225 OF 2 022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch Lqnga Reddy, S/o Laxma Reddy aged about 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, Fyo Akkapur Village, Machareddy Mandal, KamareddyDist.^-

¶9

Kuncham Nagaraju, S/o Balaiah, aged about 25 years, Occ: Tractor owner bearing No. AP-01-S-1545, F/o lssaipet Village, Machareddy Mandal, Kamareddy Dist.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Depa(ment Telangana state, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Chief Conservator of Forest, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

J The Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy. (Authorized officer)

¶15

4 The Forest Range Officer, Machareddy, Kamareddy Dist.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarrng the action of the 3'd respondent in not releasing the vehicle of the 2nd petitioner despite the fact that his order of confiscation passed in his proceedings bearing No.631/202'1156 in POR No.38/365 dt. 14.2.2021 having been set aside by the Hon'ble lX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy in Crl.Appeal NO. 14 of 2021 dl. 06.01 .2022 as illegal and amounts to defying the court orders and consequently direct the respondents to accept the sureties being given by the petitioners and release the tractor bearing No. AP-o1-S-'1545 and impose exorbitant amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with consequential costs thereon.

¶18

IANO:1OF2 022

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased ro direct the 3'd respondent to release the tractor bearing No.Ap-01-s-1545 forthwith by accepting the sureties being given for Rs. S,OO,OOO/- by the 2nd petitioner herein forthwith as otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and grave suffering,

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K ANANTHA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P FOR FOREST

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.1O225 of2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Forests for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶27

Aggrieved by the action of respondent No,3 in not releasing the vehicle of the petitioner No.2 in spite of the fact that the confiscation proceedings dated 14.02.2021 were set aside by the IX Additional District -and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2021, uide dated 06.O.2022, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record reveals that the respondent authorities have registered POR No.38/365 dated 14.O2.2021 for the offences under Sections 2, 7(b) (ii), 20 (i)(C), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) (x,29, 44(1) punishable under Sections 20(i), (d), (ii) of T.S. Forest Act, 1967, under Section 9 read with 2 (371 of Habitant Destruction of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, u/ss.425, 427,431,441 and 447 of Indian Penal Code, and u/s.2(iv) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, u/s.3 of PDPP Act, 1984, and u/ss.3 and 4 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2OO2, punishable u/ss.55 (1) and 58(1) of Biological Diversity Act-,2002, against the petitioner and others. At that time, the Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, issued a notice for confiscation of the tractor bearing No.AP-O1-S- 1545, conducted enquiry and on ).8.06.2021 the confiscation orders were passed. Further, in appeal

¶29

¶30

¶31

the learned^{IX Additional Sessions Judge' Kamareddy'uide judgment} dated 06.01.2^{O22, itCriminalAppeal No 14 of 2O21' has set aside} the confiscation^{order dated18'06'2021and also the proceedings} No.63ll2O21 156,^{POR No'38/365dated'l4'O2'2021and directed} the authorities^{to return the tractor to the appellant' Result portion} of the said^{judgment dated 06'0l '2022 is as under:}

¶32

" 19. In the^{result, the appealis allowedby setting aside the} orders dt.18.06.2021^{passedby the Forest DivisionalOfhcer'} Kamareddy,^{in proceedingsNo 63i/2021156' POR No 38/365} dt.l4.O2.2O2l,^{and the respondent forest officials aredirected} to return the Tractor^{bearingNo AP-01-S-1545to the appellant} on his furnishing^{one surety forRs 5,00'OOO/-(Rs Five Lakh} only) and^{further he has to give an undertakingthat he will not} alienate or^{changethe physical features of the vehicle and he} shall produce^{the vehicle as and when directedby the Judl'} Magistrate^{of FirstClass, Kamareddy, pendingdisposal of POR} No.38/365^{dr.l4.O2.212lfiled by the Forest department'}

¶33

In the absence^{of any appealor revisionbeing liied by the} respondent^{authorities questioning the validity of the judgment dated} 06.01.2022^{passed by the appellateCourt' therespondent} authorities^{are obligated to comply with the directions issued by the} appellate^{Court and returnthe vehicle to the petitioner'}

¶34

Having regard^{to the above, the Writ Petition is allowedand the} respondent^{authorities are directedto complywith the judgment} dated 06.01.2022^{passed by the IX AdditionalDistrict and Sessions} Judge, Kamareddy,^{in Criminal AppealNo' 14 of 2o2t and return the}

¶35

¶36

vehicle^{i.e. Tractor bearing No'AP-O1-S-1545to petitioner No'2' in}

¶37

terms^{of judgment dated 06'Ol '2022'}

¶38

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending' if any' shall stand ciosed}

¶39

¶40

There^{shal1 be no order as to costs'}

¶41

//TRUE COPYi/

¶42

SD/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

L)9

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Forest and Environment Department Telangana} state, Secietariat,^HYderabad'

¶47

The Chief Conservator^{of Forest,Telangana' Hyderabad'}

¶48

The Divisional^{Forest Officer, Kamareddy(Authorized officer)}

¶49

The Forest^{Range Officer, Machareddy' KamareddyDist'}

¶50

One CC to^{SRl. K ANANTHARAOAdvocateIOPUC]}

¶51

6.TwoCCstoGPFoRFoREST,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaAT HYDERABAD. IOUI

¶52

Two CD^Copies

¶53

One SPare^coPY

¶54

Mmry

t'I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2710412022

ORDER

WP.No.10225 of 2022

{ G
f,
o 0 3 JUll 2i:2
\ *

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

Ch. Linga Reddy v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Linga Reddy v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bollepelly Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana

Punem Koteswera Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 8 others

Katta Rajeshwar Rao Vs State of Telangana

Karnati Pichi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Narra Babu Rao and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

T.Somanarayana Vs The State of Telangana