( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed against the order dated 16-8-91 in Forest Appeal No. 4 of 1988 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Cuddapah, confirming the order of the I respondent in OR. 22/87-88 (R)/a. 5 dated 8-4-1988, confiscating the lorry of the petitioner bearing No. ADM-3879, being illegal and arbitrary and consequently pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing No. ADM-3879 and he was admitted in Kurnool General Hospital in the month of June, 1987 and underwent treatment from 17-6-1987 to 20-6-1987 and during that period he instructed the driver of his lorry Sri Shaik Khaja Peer to look after the running of the lorry, that after discharge from the hospital, he came to know that his lorry was seized by the first respondent on 19-6-1987 on the allegation that red sandal logs were transported in the lorry and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 44 of the A. P. Forest Act, 1967 (for brevity the Act) and he replied to the show cause notice giving his explanation duly bringing to the notice all the material facts stating that on the date of seizure of the vehicle he was not in Cuddapah and undergoing treatment at Kurnool General Hospital and the allegation of illegal transportation of red sandal wood by his driver happened in his absence and without his knowledge and connivance, but the first respondent without considering his explanation, ordered confiscation of the lorry through proceedings OR. 22/87-88 (R)/a. 5 dated 8-4-1988. Aggrieved by the above said order, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Sec. 44 (2-E)-cum-II Addl. District Judge, Cuddapah in Forest Appeal Suit No. 4 of 1988 which was dismissed on 16-9-1991 confirming the order of the first respondent.

( 3 ) ASSAILING the correctness of the above said order, the present writ petition was filed contending that the order of confiscation of the petitioner s lorry is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the first respondent has not considered his explanation and the evidence adduced by the petitioners, that the statements of the driver establish that the petitioner has no knowledge of the commission of the offence and therefore, should not have passed the impugned order confiscating the lorry of the petitioner. It is further contended that the first respondent has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was undergoing treatment in Kurnool General Hospital and thus he had no knowledge of the commission of offence and therefore, the first respondent should not have passed the impugned order. The petitioner further contended that he was not present in the vehicle at the time of commission of offence, that the first respondent has no evidence to pass the impugned order. It is also contended that as per S. 44 (2-C) of the Act, if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Authorised Officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance no order of confiscation could be passed, that the impugned order was passed as a result of non-application of mind to the various provisions of the Act and, therefore, for all the above stated reasons, it is prayed that the impugned order passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the III respondent the Appellate Authority, be set aside.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the respondents submit that the order of the confiscation of the lorry of the petitioner was passed after completing all the formalities like giving of adequate opportunity to the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Act, conducting a detailed enquiry and having satisfied with the facts, the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Cuddapah passed the order confiscating the lorry of the petitioner ADM 3879 under the provisions of Sub-sec. 2-A of S. 44 of the Act and the same was confirmed b