Under Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the requirement to furnish a bank guarantee for the interim release of a vehicle seized in a forest offence is mandatory and cannot be relaxed by the court.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE TATA LORRY 1109 BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KA -45-4532 OWNED BY THE PETITIONER WITHOUT INSISTING ON THE FURNISHING OF THE BANK GUARANTEE BY CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 26.11.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner in the captioned petition is seeking a mandamus to direct respondents to release the offending Tata Lorry bearing No. 1109 bearing Registration No.KA-45-4532 without insisting on furnishing of bank guarantee by considering the application dated 26.11.2025.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the vehicle belonging to him has been seized pursuant to registration of forest offence in FOC No.09/2025-26 by the respondent authorities. The petitioner asserts that he is the registered owner (RC holder) of the seized vehicle and that he has been falsely implicated in the said forest offence. It is contended that immediately after the seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner submitted an application dated 26.11.2025 before respondent No.1 seeking release of the vehicle on interim custody. However, respondent No.1 has declined to accede to the said request. Aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the authorities to release the vehicle despite his claim as the registered owner, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the seized vehicle.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on Section 63 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”), as well as the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, submits that the statute itself prescribes the manner and conditions under which a vehicle seized in connection with a forest offence can be released pending confiscation proceedings. It is contended that the language employed in Section 63 of the Act is explicit and mandatory in nature. The provision clearly stipulates that where a vehicle is seized in connection with a forest offence and the registered owner seeks interim custody, the same can be granted only upon furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the vehicle as determined by the competent authority.

Learned AGA would submit that the legislative intent behind incorporating such a condition is to safeguard the interest of the State and to ensure that vehicles used in forest offences are not easily reclaimed without adequate security pending confiscation proceedings.

Learned AGA would further contend that the statutory mandate contained in Section 63 of the Act leaves no scope for deviation or relaxation of the prescribed condition. When the legislature has consciously incorporated a specific requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle, this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot dilute or bypass the statutory requirement. The discretion of the Court is circumscribed by the scheme of the Act, and therefore the petitioner cannot seek release of the vehicle without complying with the mandatory requirement stipulated under Section 63 of the Act. It is thus contended that since the petitioner has not expressed willingness to furnish the bank guarantee as contemplated under the statute, he cannot assert any enforceable legal right seeking a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle.

Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful reading of the provisions of Section 63 of the Act, this Court finds that the statutory scheme governing seizure and release of vehicles involved in forest offences is clearly structured. The provision explicitly provides that release of the seized vehicle on interim custody is permissible only upon furn