APHC010222952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the seven The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. Between: C. Peda Subbarayudu and 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Amarava 2. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Guntur District. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal 4. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Rudravaram, Nandyal 5. The Forest Range Officer, Chelama Range, Nandyal 6. The Forest Section Officer, Chelama Section, Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ayesha Azma. S Counsel for the respondents: 1. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, A.G. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) seventh day of May, two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2026 C. Peda Subbarayudu, S/o. C.Naganna, Nandyal. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Mangalagiri, The Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Rudravaram, Nandyal The Forest Range Officer, Chelama Range, Nandyal. The Forest Section Officer, Chelama Section, Nandyal ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: . S Counsel for the respondents: Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, A.G.P. for Forests The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] th day of May, two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mangalagiri, The Divisional Forest Officer, Nandyal Division, Nandyal. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Rudravaram, Nandyal. . Nandyal. ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 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….” 2. 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 3 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 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. 3. Heard Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. 4. 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 4 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 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. 5. 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. & Others1 Therefore, she vehemently contended that the property may be ordered to be released or else the property gets damaged. 6. 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 stated as follows: “…During the enquiry, the accused were given opportunity to establish the source of bamboo procured to make Chandrikalu which were being transported in the vehicle bearing No. KA 11 C 9933. Sri C. Subbarayadu and Kandula Subramanyam have also admitted that the load of Chandrikalu belonged to them and they have procured Bamboo from Sri Maruthi Timber Depot, Ravulapalem of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema district under permit No.1099765/ 18.12.2024. Though the permit was issued from Ravulapalem to Gajulapalli, there is no evidence of such transport of the bamboo on ground as permit was not checked at Diguvametta forest check post and Pacherla forest 1 W.P.No.35932 of 2025, dt.25.02.2026 5 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 Check post. Concerned Forest Beat Officer, Gajulapalli or Forest Section Officer, Chelama were also not intimated on receipt of load of bamboo from Ravulapalem for inspection. The accused have also admitted in the inquiry that some of the bamboo was purchased from local people for making Chandrikalu. The accused could not produce any other evidence or document to prove that bamboo used for making Chandrikalu which are being transported in the vehicle No.KA 11 C 9933 are actually transported from Ravulapalem to Gajulapalli. Hence, it was concluded in the report given by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Rudravaram that the source of the material, namely, bamboo used in making Chandrikalu being transported in the vehicle bearing No.KA 11 C 9933 is sourced from the Tiger Reserve Forest, in contravention of Section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and the offence is punishable under Sections 51(1) and 51 1(C) read with Section 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and also in contravention of Section 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (x) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and under Section 29 (2) b and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act and Rule 3 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970.” 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests further submitted that in view of the express inclusion of ‘bamboo’ in the definition of ‘forest produce’ of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, the petitioner ought to have shown the source of purchase of tatties, if any, and therefore, a case was registered against him for the forest offences. 6 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 She further submitted that even for release of the vehicle in interim custody, as per Section 44(3) of the A.P. Forest Act, the petitioner has to approach the competent authority therein and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. Since the subject matter is to be dealt within the criminal proceedings already initiated, it is premature to make any comment about the main issue as to whether carrying bamboo tatties is an offence or not. However, the seized property, viz., ‘chandrikalu’ shall be released in interim custody to the petitioner, however, subject to certain conditions. 9. It is apt to refer the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat2, wherein it was held at paragraphs No. 7 as follows: “7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-- 1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 2 AIR 2003 SC 638 7 BSB, J W.P.No.11737 of 2026 4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.” 10. 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 07.05.2026 RAR