##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:35679 APHC010139672026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Monday, the sixth day of April, two thousand and twenty six Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.7506 of 2026

Between:

Erigela Nagi Reddy ...Petitioner and

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:

1. Ayesha Azma. S Counsel for the respondents:

1. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned A.G.P. for Forests The Court made the following:

2 BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:35679

W.P.No.7506 of 2026

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction declaring the action of the respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s lorry bearing No.AP 39 TQ 5850 along with the load of bamboo Tatties (chandrikalu) under OR No.23/2025-26 (Book No.893), dated 13.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the judgments of this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to release the lorry bearing No.AP 39 TQ 5850 forthwith and pass such order or orders in the proper circumstances of the case in

the interests of justice.”

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

a. The petitioner, registered owner of the vehicle, seeks the above relief mainly on the ground that the bamboo or its derivates are not covered by the definition of ‘forest produce’ in view of the amendment made to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, ‘Act, 1927’) by ordinance resulting in omission of the word “bamboos” in the definition of “tree” under Section 2(7) of the Act, 1927 and that the central law prevails over the state law, i.e., the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short, ‘Act, 1967’). b. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this issue was already dealt by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.634 of 1989 on 25.03.1991 by holding that the finished products made of bamboo do not require transit permits and further this Court recently, by order,

3 BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:35679

W.P.No.7506 of 2026

dated 25.02.2026, in W.P.No.35932 of 2025, directed release of the vehicle said to be seized while carrying bamboo thatties, after

exhaustively considering the similar submissions.

3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests placed on record a copy of the written instructions opposing the petition. It was further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Policy Division), on 22.12.2017, issued clarification to all the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and HoFF’s of all States and Union Territories that the amendment omitted the word “bamboos” grown outside the forest area,

but it continues to be applicable in respect of the forest land.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any clarification cannot run contrary to the law in the statute, and therefore, the finished product of bamboo is not at all covered either by the Act, 1967, which is superseded by the amendment to the Act, 1927, a central legislation. She further submitted that the issue on the same point was already decided in the other proceedings as per the observations of this Court in W.P.No.35932 of 2025. Therefore, the vehicle may be released in interim custody since it was never involved in similar offences and its continued exposure to rain and sunlight would

cause damage.

5. In W.P.No.35932 of 2025, after dealing with the contentions of both sides regarding application of the law and forest offences in relation to bamboo after the amendment to Act, 1927 with effect from 23.11.2017, this Court observed that the writ petition, since is only for release of the vehicle for interim custody, without going into the merits and contentions, the property can be directed to be released subject to