ORDER : Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 24th January, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P. No. 397 of 1999, which was filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus:- (a) Declaring the impugned order vide Ref. No. 4385/95-M5, dated 16.12.1998 of the 1st respondent confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in proceedings Rc. No. 3021/93-G3, dated 7.3.1998 even without answering the several important grounds raised in the appeal; (b) Declaring the unauthorized seizure of Red Sanders though the renewal application was pending consideration on the date of seizure and though the petitioner had not contravened any provisions of the A.P. Forest Act and Rules made there under; (c) Declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in non-accounting of difference of stocks of 1339 Red Sanders Logs and 520 stumps which was seized under Panchanama dated 1.7.1996; (d) Declaring the proceedings in R.No. 3021/93-G3, dated 7.3.1998 of the 2nd respondent in refusing to renew the Red Sanders possession licence of the petitioner; (e) Declaring the action of the 2nd respondent for forfeiting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- in proceedings Rc. No. 3021/93-G2, dated 8.8.1996 and the proceedings No. 1775/93-G2, of the 2nd respondent to the State; (f) Declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- vide proceedings in Notice Rc. No. 3021/93-G2, dated 9.8.1996 for issue of Red Sander Possession Licence in Form-II; as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust and unconstitutional being violative of the A.P. Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to declare the said action of the respondents as void, ab initio, null and void and nonest in the eye of law. 2. In the writ petition, the facts as it appears from the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit are that the writ petitioner in violation of Red Sanders Possession Rules and for discrepancies in the stock in the go-down of the writ petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 seized the stocks under seizure report dated 6.7.1996 i.e. total of 6 items including 3758 logs of Red Sanders. The petitioner had to face the criminal charges and ultimately the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati, after trial, acquitted the petitioner in C.C. No. 576 of 1998. There appears to be no dispute with regard to the Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2004, filed by the prosecution, against the acquittal of the writ petitioner and that the same was dismissed. In these circumstances, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition with the prayer stated supra. 3. The Hon'ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, partly allowed the writ petition issuing mandamus against the 2nd respondent therein for return of 1339 logs of Red Sanders to the petitioner either in specie or in value within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. The contention raised before the Hon'ble single Judge by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has again been raised before us stating that there was a fire broke out in the go-down of the petitioner on 29.6.1996 and that the seized goods which were kept in the said go-down were burnt and that in these circumstances the writ petitioner is not bound to get back the said seized goods or the valuation as directed to be paid in the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent only tried to give an explanation for the loss of seized material that the difference which is apparent in the seizure list/panchanama are only due to misclassification and mixing of the logs and due to shrink of the material due to natural factors and heavy rain. 8. The contention of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted. However, after considering the facts as it would appear from the material placed before us, it appears to us, that such contention of the Government Pleader in the appeal cannot be accepted by us since it cannot be substantiated by any material or records and none of such material or record has been produced before us. However, after considering the facts as it would appear from the material placed before us, it appears to us, that such contention of the Government Pleader in the appeal cannot be accepted by us since it cannot be substantiated by any material or records and none of such material or record has been produced before us. On the contrary it appears to us that in the criminal proceedings the panchanama was placed and the same has been accepted, where from it would appear the number of logs, which were seized by the appellants/authorities and on the basis of that the petitioner is already acquitted from the said criminal charges. Further, more, the seized logs, which appear in the panchanama were never disputed and further more the logs which were also returned to the writ petitioner were not in dispute by the learned Government Pleader. 9. In view of that, we do not find there is any substance in this writ appeal. We find no illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the Hon'ble single Judge. 10. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned single Judge is confirmed.