Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. S. Bhanumathi, J
C PEDA SUBBARAYUDU – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ayesha Azma. S
For the Respondents: Baliboyina Sravani
Seized perishable property should be released in interim custody to the owner upon furnishing security to prevent irreparable loss and damage, regardless of the pending determination of the main legal issue in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the seizure of 100 bundles of bamboo tatties (Chandrikalu) and a vehicle under O.R.No.24/2025-26, alleging the action was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents contended that the bamboo was sourced from a Tiger Reserve Forest in contravention of Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and that the petitioner failed to prove the legal source of the material. The primary issue is whether the seizure of bamboo derivatives is legal given the 2017 amendment to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which omitted "bamboo" from the definition of "tree". The court observed that since criminal proceedings are already initiated, it is premature to decide the main legal issue regarding the status of bamboo as forest produce. However, the court reasoned that the seized property is perishable and, following the principle that owners should not suffer due to the unused state of articles, interim custody should be granted. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the property viz., ‘chandrikalu’ shall be released in interim custody to the petitioner on his furnishing security for the value of the property to the satisfaction of the concerned authority besides personal bond of the petitioner to the same value.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in seizing and detaining the petitioner’s 100 bundles of Bamboo Tatties (Chandrikalu) made out of 800 1st class bamboos under O.R.No.24/2025-26, dated 13.10.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgments of this Hon’ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the said bamboo tatties to the petitioner for interim custody, subject to such conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper, including conditions under Section 44 (3) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 ….”
The facts, as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows:
a. The petitioner, along with Sri Kandula Subramaniam, lawfully purchased a quantity of 3,200 green bamboos from Sri Maruthi Timber & Bamboo Depot, Ravulapalem, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema district. They manufactured 100 bundles of Chandrikalu utilizing approximately 800 first class bamboos.
b. On 13.10.2025, while they were transporting the manufactured goods by hiring an Eicher vehicle bearing No.KA 11 C 9933, near Boyilakuntla Metta, Gajulapalli Beat, the respondents Nos.5 & 6 intercepted the vehicle and seized the vehicle, along with 100 bundles of bamboo tatties, under a preliminary offence report registering the case as O.R.No.24/2025-26. Thereafter, the respondent No.4, vide proceedings Rc.No.FO.No.24/2025-26/Sub-D.F.O., RVM, dated 23.12.2025, arbitrarily concluded that the bamboo was sourced from the Tiger Reserve Forest.
c. The action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The seized bamboo tatties (Chandrikalu) are perishable in nature. If they are exposed to the sun and the rain at the Gajulapalli R.S. Depot indefinitely, they will be damaged rendering them useless and causing irreparable loss to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed.
Heard Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the amendment made to the definition of “tree” in Section 2(7) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and as the word “bamboo” has been omitted by Act 6 of 2017, with effect from 23-11-2017, consequently the definition of “forest produce” under Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 shall be read on the same lines and consequently, any restriction or limitations imposed on any forest produce cannot be made applicable to bamboos or derivatives of bamboos. She further submitted that the provisions under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 , shall be read in the light of the amendments made to the Central Act and when there is inconsistency between the State enactment and the subsequent central enactment or amendment, the latter shall prevail over the former and therefore, the seizure of bamboo (chandrikalu) in the present case is illegal and the vehicle ought not to have been seized.
She further submitted that the finished product made out of bamboo is not at all a forest produce as was held by a Division Bench of this High Court and the same subject has been already dealt with by this Court in Mohd. Khadeer Baig Vs. The State of A.P. & Others1W.P.No.35932 of 2025, dt.25.02.2026 Therefore, she vehemently contended that the property may be ordered to be released or else the property gets damaged.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests vehemently opposed the petition. She placed on record a copy of written instructions, vide Rc.No.F.O.24 / 2025 – 2026/CHR, dated 04.05.2026, wherein it was
