B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in the instant writ petition pray for issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in seizing Ambassador Car bearing No. AAV-6929 under Rc. No. 1/mp/ii/92-93 dated 9-4-1992 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also pray for a declaration that the proceedings No. 2371/92/hb, dated 21-4-1992 on the file of the first respondent as null and void. Relevant Facts :

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of the Ambassador Car Bearing No. AAV-6929 (for short the Car ) of 1969 model. The petitioners are stated to have purchased the said car for a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00. 00 in the year 1991 for the purposes of plying the same on hire. On 8-4-1992, the Car is said to have been hired by a marriage party from Warangal to Khamrnam. It was seized by the second respondent herein on the ground that the car was used as escort for a lorry which is alleged to have been transporting illegal timber. The vehicle was seized on the ground that it is used for the commission of forest offence. However, the allegation that the driver of the car has used the car for committing forest offence and he was escorting the lorry as alleged by the respondents and the seizure, according to the petitioners, is based on assumptions and prc-assumptions.

( 3 ) IT is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondents are authorised to seize any vehicle if it is used for carrying the forest produce without any permit. It is their case that only such of the vehicles which are actually used for transporting and involved in committing the offence alone can be seized.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, even according to the respondents, the car in question was used only to escort the lorry bearing No. AHJ 7373 which was transporting teak logs. The timber loaded in the lorry do not bear any hammer marks and the transportation was not covered by valid permits as required under Rules 3 and 4 of A. P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (for short the Rules ). It is the case of the petitioners that the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle followed by proceedings No. 2371/hb/ 92, dt. 21-4-1992 directing the petitioners to show-cause as to why the seized car should not be confiscated, suffers from inherent tack of jurisdiction. The petitioners submit that the proceedings dt. 21-4-1992 arc ultra vires.

( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that having received reliable and credible information that the lorry bearing No. AHJ 7373 was carrying illegal timber from Narsainpet to Tirumalagiri, the mobile party of the department had proceeded on 8-4-1992 for patrolling from Narsampet to Tirumalagiri, through Nakkonda, Warangal, Thorrur, Khammam Cross Road and Suryapet. They have noticed the lorry being escorted by the car bearing registration No. AAV 6929 and a Yamaha motor cycle. The lorry was stopped and intercepted. It was found that the lorry was carrying illegal teak logs, as the logs were not having any hammer marks and valid permit required under the rules. None of the persons present in the lorry and the escort car could produce the relevant documents. A Panchanama was conducted and the lorry was seized along with the car. It is the specific case of the respondents that one Manigala Venkata Reddy S/o Aga Reddy; Manieala Narasimha Reddy S/o Aga Reddy and some unknown persons took away the lorry by dragging the staff from the lorry and made an attempt to take the car by threatening the officers and the mobile party with weapons. The I. F. S. probationery officer, chased them away. The offence is stated to have been reported to the police station, Tirumalagiri immediately.

( 6 ) ON enquiry, the car driver, Sri Amarender Reddy is alleged to have stated to the effect that the car was engaged for a sum of Rs. 5,000-00 to escort the lorry carrying the illegal timber from Narsampet to Tirumalagiri on 7-4-1992

Click Here to Read the rest of this document