JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.07.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 2/Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Virajpet Division, Virajpet in FOC No.20/2017-18 dated 03.07.2020 at Annexure-A and sought for relaxation of the Condition No. 1 imposed by the Respondent No. 2 to submit Bank Guarantee of a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- in FOC No. 20/2017-18. 2. Heard Sri Mahadeva R.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R. Srinivasa Gowda, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.08.2017, the respondent No. 1 herein has received the information that the petitioner has put up certain wooden logs and firewood pieces in a lorry bearing Registration No. KA 12 B 4874 and the lorry is covered with black colour tarpaulin and the petitioner is trying to illegally transport the said logs which was unloaded with the help of crane and accordingly the said logs were seized, on the basis of the written complaint by the respondent No. 1, under Section 62, 71A, 80 and 104A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 127A, 144 read with 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, further, submitted that pursuant to the seizure of the vehicle, the same is kept in the custody of respondent No. 2 and in view of the Condition No. 1 to furnish a Bank Guarantee, he is not able to comply with the condition No.1 however he has complied with all other objections raised by the 2nd respondent and in view of Covid-19 epidemic, petitioner not able to arrange money and is under financial crisis, and accordingly he sought for quashing of the Condition No. 1 imposed by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-A. 5. Learned HCGP submits that the Writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner shall comply with the Condition No. 1 imposed by the respondent No. 2, and there is no impediment for the petitioner to comply the said condition No.1 as such he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case papers. 7. The impugned order dated 03.07.2020 at Annexure-A is passed by the respondent No.2 by imposing condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of sum of Rs. 6. I have considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case papers. 7. The impugned order dated 03.07.2020 at Annexure-A is passed by the respondent No.2 by imposing condition of furnishing Bank Guarantee of sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- in FOC No. 20/2017-18 with regard to release of the lorry in question in favour of the petitioner. 8. Having considered the avocation of the petitioner herein, so also the COVID-19 pandemic it is needless to say that the Condition No. 1 imposed by the respondent No. 2 requires to be relaxed as the lorry in question is stationed for more than two months without any protection and also, it could be possible for the petitioner to eke out some rents from utilising the service of the lorry and therefore, Writ Petition is to be partly allowed with a modification of the impugned order directing the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- along with like surety. The question as to whether timber, which was felled and lying in the land belonging to the petitioner is a forest produce or not, is kept open and it is to be decided by the competent Authority in accordance with law. The respondent No.2-competent Authority shall release the vehicle forthwith, taking indemnity bond as directed by this Court and subject to compliance of other conditions imposed, if any. Ordered accordingly.