( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed for writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 4-10-1996 made in CMA no. 16/94 passed by the District Judge, warangal confirming the Order dated 24-02-1. 994 made in Office file No. 12/sdm/ 93 passed by the 1 st Respondent and quash the sane as illegal and arbitrary.

( 2 ) IT is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. ADB 4959 and plying the same on hire and eking out his livelihood. On 9-6-93, the petitioner instructed his driver to transport grains from ameenabad to Narsampet. On 10-06-1993, he was informed by his brother-in-law, by name Janardhan Reddy, that the lorry was taken under threat by some persons and got it loaded with teak sizes. Thereupon, the petitioner went to Nekkonda by taking one yamaha Motorcycle from G. Girinadh and had been to the route in search of the lorry. The petitioner noticed the lorry seized by the forest officials at Chinna Nagaram Village, and when the petitioner went to the 2nd respondent to enquire about the seizure of the lorry, he was informed that the lorry was transporting some teak sizes and when petitioner pleaded his ignorance, the 2nd respondent also seized the motorcycle. During the enquiry the petitioner gave statements narrating the above facts. But, the 1 st Respondent proceeded that one lorry was used for transporation of timber and confiscated the lorry on the ground that the petitioner was responsible for transportation of timber. It is also stated that there is no material on record to form such an opinion except self-serving confessional statements recorded by the forest officials. As such, the finding of the 1st respondent that the petitioner was involved in transportation of timber cannot be sustained. It is further stated that as against the order dated 24-02-1994 passed by the 1st respondent confiscating the lorry, the petitioner filed cma No. 16 of 1994 before the District judge, Warangal. The learned District judge, Warangal also dismissed the appeal on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner during the enquiry under Section 44 of the A. P. Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter in short referred to The act for the purpose of convenience ). Questioning the said Order made by the learned District Judge, Warangal in CMA no. 16 of 1994, the present Writ Petition is filed.

( 3 ) SRI A. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions: the learned counsel would maintain that even as per the language employed in section 44 of the Act, it cannot be said that the motorcycle was in any way concerned with the commission of the offence alleged and hence the seizure of the motorcycle definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also would contend that the owner of the motorcycle was not put on notice and no reasonable opportunity was given to the owner of the said motorcycle and in view of the same, the procedure contemplated under Section 44 (2-B) of the Act had not been followed. The learned counsel also further pointed out that except the self- serving statements recorded by forest officials, there is no other material to show that the petitioner is involved in the transportation of the forest produce and that he had acknowledged the use of the vehicle in commission of the said offence. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this court to Section 44 (2) and also section 44 (2-C) of the Act and would contend that in view of the fact that the said provisions had not been followed, the Order is vitiated and liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Government pleader for Forests had drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the authorized Officer-Sub-Divisional Forest officer, Mahabubabad -1st Respondent and would point out that sufficient opportunity had been given to both the owner of the lorry bearing No. ADB 4959 and the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 36 4390.