ORDER N.K. Patil, J. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the first respondent-Authorised Officer bearing No. FOC:2:2005-06 vide Annexure-B and order dated 2.8.2008 passed by the learned Principal Session Judge, Mandya in Crl. Appeal No. 62/08 at Annexure-C and also to issue a direction to release the said vehicle after obtaining the proper valuation from the competent authority, has presented this writ petition. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that: petitioner earlier had filed a Writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.5172/2007 for quashing of the entire confiscation proceedings in No. FOC:2:2005-06 pending before the respondent-Authorized Officer and to grant the interim order to release the above vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-01-B/6191 to the interim custody of the petitioner. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 17th March 2008. This Court has disposed of the said writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make application and also directed the authorized officer to pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the application. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 17th March 2008 in W.P.No.5172/2007, the respondent Authorized Officer has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-B dated 24th April 2008. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 24th April 2008 vide Annexure-B, passed by the respondent-Authorized Officer in proceeding No. FOC:2:2005-06, petitioner herein has filed a Criminal Appeal before the Fast Trackk Court-IV, Mandya in Crl. Appeal No. B2/2008. The said Criminal Appeal had come up for consideration before the Fast Track Court-IV Mandya on 2nd August 2008. The Fast Trackk Court-IV Mandya, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, including the order passed by the respondent-Authorised Officer and by assigning cogent and valid reasons, has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the respondent-Authorised Officer as per Annexure-C. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders vide Annexures-B and C and seeking appropriate directions as stated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner at considerable length of time on 17th October, 2008 and also today. 4. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner at considerable length of time on 17th October, 2008 and also today. 4. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioner, including the impugned orders vide Annexures-B and C as referred above, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, neither the respondent-Authorised Officer nor the Fast Trackk Court-IV Mandya, have committed any error of law, much less material irregularity in considering the application filed by petitioner and confirming the same. The said application has been considered with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules and specifically by taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the charge-sheet filed in CC 314/2006 and connected documents, which would prima facie indicate that, Lorry No. KA:01 D:6191 was found transporting about one tonne of Sandalwood chips and billets at about 1.45 A. M. on 23.6.2005 and the same were seized by the police near Hanakere village on Mysore-Bangalore road. The petitioner herein- appellant before the Fast Trackk Court is the Accused No.1 in Criminal case and he is claiming to be owner of the seized lorry. Further, it emerges from the record that, the said Sandalwood was being transported from Mysore to New Delhi in the said lorry by covering the same with medicinal goods like Disprin Tablets and Dettol Bottles, which prima facie indicates that in a well organized and preplanned manner heavy load of Sandalwood was being transported from Karnataka State to New Delhi in the lorry belonged to the petitioner herein. Further it reveals from the record made available by the prosecution annexed to the charge sheet that, the said lorry had undertaken at least 3 to 4 trips earlier to New Delhi from Karnataka and though it is not possible for the Court to presume or infer that on all such previous occasions, the lorry had transported Sandalwood illegally and it is quite apparent that the lorry is in very good running condition because it was deployed for transporting contraband goods from southern state (Karnataka) to New Delhi which is a far away place. As per the seizure mahazar dated 23.6.2005 shows that the total value of all the seized goods is worth more than about 35 Lakhs and it has been specifIcally mentioned in the charge-sheet that, the total weight of the Sandalwood seized from the lorry and from the custody of the accused on 23.6.2005 was 1008 KGs and it was worth Rs.3, 02,400/- and if the said value of Rs.3,02,400/- is deducted out of total assessed value of Rs.35 lakhs, it become abundantly clear that, the value of the lorry and medicinal goods found in the lorry would come to Rs.31 or Rs.32 lakhs. Even if it is assumed that the value of the medicinal goods is about 50%, then it would only mean that the lorry was worth Rs.14 to 15 lakh and not less than that and in that view of the matter the order of the respondent requiring the appellant to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.4 Lakh for obtaining interim custody of the lorry does not appears to be unreasonable or without any basis. The above said reasoning has been by the Fast Track Court-IV Mandya in Para-10 of the order after thorough verification of the entire material available on file and the papers made available by the learned Counsel for respondent-Authorized Officer. The Fast Track Court-IV Mandya, after critical evaluation of the entire original records made available on file and after taking the value of the goods and conduct of the petitioner and after assigning valid reasons in paras-10,11 and 12 of the order, has specifically observed that, “the said appeal has been preferred by the petitioner obviously with an oblique intention to walk away with the custody of the seized vehicle on namesake condition which the appellant wants to have permanent custody of the seized vehicle lest he can make use of the vehicle for the choice of his own including further nefarious activities like the one in connection with the vehicle was seized on 23.6.2005. The Court below has rightly taken into consideration the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment that, “Court cannot encourage such conduct and intention of the person like petitioner”. The Court below has rightly taken into consideration the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment that, “Court cannot encourage such conduct and intention of the person like petitioner”. The Fast Trackk Court-IV, Mandya, after assigning valid reasons, has rightly not interfered in the order passed by the respondent-Authorized Officer and recorded a finding that, the impugned order therein does not call for any interference or modification. The said reasoning given by the Fast Trackk Court-IV Mandya, for rejecting the appeal filed by petitioner is just and reasonable. Nor I find any good grounds to entertain this writ petition and hence, it is liable to be rejected at threshold. 5. For yet another reason, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected, is in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in hosts of judgment that, the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied with. Generally the seized forest produce and the vehicle, boat,tools etc., used in commission of forest offence should not be released. Even if Court is inclined to release the same, the authorized offIcer must specify reasons therefor and must insist on furnishing of bank guarantee as the minimum condition. The forest produce transported in violation of provisions of the Act, the vehicle use in connection with the transportation along with the forest produce seized, vehicle released by authorized officer subject to certain conditions including furnishing of bank guarantee. The Courts cannot take a liberal approach in the matter, which would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is surely to affect mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The Courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act, enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere and when any vehicle is seized on the allegations that it was used for committing a forest offence, the same shall not normally be returned to a party till the culmination of all the proceedings in respect of such offence, including confiscatory proceedings, if any. If the above said ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan reported In (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases Page 80, is applied to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no scope for this Court to entertain this writ petition and to interfere in the well considered order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Fast Trackk Court-IV Mandya vide Annexure-C as referred above. Nor I find any error of law, much less material irregularity in the said order. Even the petitioner has not made out any good grounds to entertain this writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed as devoid of merits.