APHC010162702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 9289 of 2026 Between: Mude Rajanaik ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Forests The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.9289 of 2026 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP 39 GX 3927 (Toyota Etios) as illegal, unjust and violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently release the petitioner’s vehicle. 2. The petitioner initially filed writ petition No.21323 of 2025 for not releasing the vehicle to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.08.2025 with a direction to the respondent No.2 therein to dispose of the petition for release of the vehicle within one week from the date of receipt of copy of that order in the writ petition. 3. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Badvel / respondent No.4 vide Proc.No.CR.No.294/2023/Sub-DFO/Bdl, (FRO, Kadapa) dated 20.09.2025 passed the order directing confiscation of the vehicle and seized the red sandal logs by exercising authority under Section 44 (2-B) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 [in short ‘the Act’]. It was indicated in the order that an appeal would lie with the Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool or with the District Court, Kadapa, if any preferred within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Conservator of Forests on 13.10.2025 by filing an appeal. It was disposed of on 10.02.2026 vide Rc.No.3927/2025/M6, confirming the order of the respondent No.4 by rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition was filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests. She placed 3 W.P.No.9289 of 2026 on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.Cr.No.294/2023/Sub DFO/Bdl, dated 13.04.2026. 6. The order impugned in this writ petition shows that the said authority followed the procedure under Section 44 (2-E) of the Act. In fact, when any forest produce or vehicle was seized by an authorized officer under Section 44 (1) of the Act, the same may be produced before the authorized officer under Section 44 (2) or report to the concerned Magistrate. Then, if the accused has not compounded the offence, the officer before whom the seized produce or vehicle can order confiscation as per Section 44 (2-A), if he is satisfied that the forest offence has been committed. 7. The remedies available to the person aggrieved by the order under Section 44 (2-A) are twofold. One is to prefer an appeal to the District Court as per Section 44 (2-E). The other one is that it is amenable for revision by the Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government either suo moto or by an application as per Section 44 (2- D). The person aggrieved by such order under Section 44 (2-D) also can approach the District Court in appeal under Section 44 (2-E). Thus, an appeal would lie to the District Court under Section 44 (2-E) or revision before the Conservator of Forests under Section 44 (2-D) against the order of confiscation under Section 44 (2-A). 8. Though, the order impugned in this writ petition was labelled as an appeal and Section 44 (2-E) was referred, in fact, it is a revision and not an appeal, that too under Section 44 (2-D), but not Section 44 (2-E). 9. At any rate, since the petitioner can approach in appeal to the District Court, filing the writ petition is premature and doesn’t arise. 4 W.P.No.9289 of 2026 10. In view of the submissions on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Court as per law. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 15.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 17.04.2026 b/o NSM 5 W.P.No.9289 of 2026 25 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 9289 of 2026 Dated: 15.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 17.04.2026 b/o NSM