APHC010695192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wednesday, the twenty fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 35932 Between: Mohammad Khadeer Baig and The State of AP and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ayesha Azma. S Counsel for the respondents: 1. Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned A. The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the twenty fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 35932 of 2025 Mohammad Khadeer Baig The State of AP and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ayesha Azma. S Counsel for the respondents: Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned A.G.P. for Forests Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, the twenty fifth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an appropriate 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 lorry bearing No.KA 11 C 9933 along with the load of bamboo Tatties (chandrikalu) under POR No.24/2025-26 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.KA 11 C 9933 forthwith and pass such other order or orders in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner is the registered owner of the goods carriage vehicle bearing No.KA 11 C 9933. The petitioner is engaged in the business of goods, including bamboo by–products and briquettes. While so, on 13.10.2025, the subject vehicle was transporting a load of bamboo tatties (chandrikalu) procured from Sri Maruthi bamboo & Timber Depot, Ravulapalem and subsequently converted into finished products (chandrikalu) by the Mahendra Burood Bamboo Workers Co- operative society. At about 4 P.M. approximately, while the vehicle was passing through the Chelama Section near Boilakuntla Metta, respondent No.4, Forest Range Officer, and his staff intercepted the vehicle and seized the vehicle with the stock therein. A preliminary offence report vide P.O.R.No.24/2025-2026 was registered under 3 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 Sections 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)(x), 29(2)(b) and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and Rule 3 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970. The value of the goods was estimated at Rs.37,370/-. 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 5 of 2018, 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 the 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. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests filed a copy of written instructions of the Forest Range Officer, Chelama Range, vide Rc.No.F.O.24/2025-26/CHR, dated 05.01.2026, wherein it was stated as follows: “… The Forest Section Officer, Chelama section has booked a case on 13-10-2025 against Vijay Rai S/o. Kokay Rai R/o. Boria, Samithpur, Bihar state vide POR 4 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 No.56, Book No.50 and registered the case vide OR No.24/2025-26, while transporting of 100 Nos. chandrikalu made with 800 Nos. chandrikalu made with 800 Nos. of 1st class bamboos loaded into Eicher Eutech vehicle bearing No.KA 11 C 9933. The forest officials stopped the vehicle and asked for related documents for transporting of the chandrikalu and the source of the bamboo used in making chandrikalu. But the driver did not produce any document. In this regard, it is submitted that as per the provision under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding and Prosecution) Rules, 1969 enquiry is conducted by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Rudravaram on 10.11.2025 and on 09.12.2025 and on 23.12.2025. During the enquiry the vehicle driver has stated that he is getting livelihood by transporting goods. He also stated that the vehicle belongs to Fire Ball Briquette Pvt. Ltd and the forest produce being transported belongs to Sri Kandula Subramaniam S/o Kandula Venkata Subbaiah, R/o Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi mandal and Sri C.Pedda Subbarayadu, S/o C.Naganna, R/o Gajulapalli, Mahanandi Mandal. Further, 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 Kandula Subrahmaniam and Sri C. Pedda Subbarayadu have also admitted that the load of chandrikalu belonged to them and they have procured bamboo from Sri Maurthi 5 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 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 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 the 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 57 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and also in contravention of Section 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) & (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967, and Section 29(2)(b) and 44 of the A.P. Forest Act and Rule 3 of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970.” 6 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 She 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 from the society, if any, and therefore, a case was registered against them for forest offences. 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. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the illegality in the seizure is evident from the above said amendments, the writ petition is maintainable. She further submitted that in other writ petitions seeking similar reliefs, this Court allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.23132 of 2011 and ordered release of the vehicle. The operative portion of the order, dated 17.08.2011, reads as follows: “Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to immediately release the above-mentioned lorry to their lawful owners, subject to their filing an undertaking that the lorry will not be alienated or its physical condition is altered in any manner till completion of the enquiry. It is made clear that the petitioner shall abide by the final order that may be passed after completion of the enquiry by the respondents….” 7. Since the trial in the offence is not yet concluded, without going into the merits as to whether the offence is made out in the present case 7 BSB, J W.P.No.35932 of 2025 or not, in view of the order in W.P.No.23132 of 2011, this writ petition is also disposed of, for the reasons alike in W.P.No.23132 of 2011. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the vehicle, i.e., Eicher Pro 3018XP bearing No.KA 11 C 9933 to the petitioner for interim custody subject to the conditions to be imposed by the competent authority under Section 44(3) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, as required therein. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 25.02.2026 RAR