In this case, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29-11-2006 in FOC No. 32/2006-07 whereby and whereunder the 1st respondent has imposed certain conditions for release of the vehicle bearing No. KA-53-711 (a tipper) in his favour.

2. Petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the business of transportation of waste mud and sand on contract basis. On the request of the customers, he transports the mud and sand from one place to another place. One Narayan Raju, a contractor hired the vehicle of the petitioner for transportation of mud and sand from the surroundings of I.T.C. Company to Palace Ground, Bangalore. On 20-7-2006 at about 12.10 P.M. while the vehicle of the petitioner was transporting the mud and sand, certain officials of the Forest Department seized the vehicle alleging that the vehicle was involved in commission of certain offences.

Petitioner has produced a copy of the FIR at Annexure-B, mahazar at Annexure-C and seizure report at Annexure-D. It is the case of the petitioner that he has borrowed loan from a financial institution for the purpose of purchase of the said vehicle. On an application filed to the 1st respondent for release of the said vehicle, the 1st respondent has passed an order directing the 2nd respondent to release the vehicle in favour of the registered owner after obtaining a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,00,000/-. The 1st respondent has imposed certain other conditions such as the vehicle should not be sold or alienated in any form; that the colour, shape or any material alteration should not be done and that the RC owner should produce the vehicle whenever it is required by the authority and also required by the Court. In this case, the petitioner is only aggrieved by the imposition of the condition directing the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 10.00 lakhs which is estimated value of the vehicle as the condition for release of the vehicle.

3. The respondents have filed detailed objections. It is contended that the respondents have registered the case under FOC No. 32/2006-07 against certain persons for the offences punishable under Sections 85 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'Forest Act') and the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short, 'Forest Rules') and Section 8 read with Section 22 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (for short, 'Trees Act') and under Section 2(16) and Section 9 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, Wild Life Act) and Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is further contended that the aforesaid case was registered against certain persons on 20-7-2006 for damaging trees including sandalwood trees, for injuring the standing trees and burying the trees and other materials underneath the soil by dumping the soil in the wet land area of the Bangalore Palace Ground, in violation of the aforesaid provisions of the Acts and Rules. Several species of trees including sandalwood trees have been uprooted and buried inside the heap of soil. The wild birds habitat has been destroyed. The vehicle in question and once Scooter bearing No. KA-04/Q-9071 used in the commission of the offences have been seized along with 4 logs of rain trees by the respondents. The seized vehicle was used for commission of forest offences. It is submitted that while seeking interim custody of the vehicle before the 1st respondent, the petitioner has submitted that he is ready to comply with all the conditions, which may be imposed by the Authorised Officer for releasing the vehicle. the 1st respondent has obtained the valuation certificate of the vehicle in question from the RTO who has assessed the market value approximately at Rs: 10.00 lakhs. The respondents have filed the valuation certificates along with their statement of objections and marked at Annexure-R1. It is stated tha