WP/23125/2004 of M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporations Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 28 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 23125 of 2004

Between:

M/s Meenakshi Finance Corporations, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, rep byits Manager U.Bhaskar, Son of Shivaiah R/o.Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2 The Station House Officer, Pargi Police Station, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.

3 Mohammed Ahmed S/o. Mohamed Yousuf

Near Rice Mill, Shantinagar, Pargi, R.R. District 4 K.Kistaiah, S/0 K. Narsaiah, Owner of auto, R/o Pargi, R.R.District.

(The third and the fourth respondents were impleaded as per the orders of this Court inW.P.M.P.No. 30789 of 2004 dated 23.12.2004 and W.P.M.P.No.31446 of 2004 dated28.12.2004 respectively.)

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue an appropriate writ, order, direction more particularly a writ in thenature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Autobearing No.AP 09 DQ-T/R 3076 seized in Crime No.91/2004.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 and 4: None appeared The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioner claims to have financed the purchase of the vehicle bearing No. AP09 DQ-T/R 3067 by the fourth respondent. The said vehicle is said to havebeen seized by the second respondent on the ground that it was used intransporting the liquor. Proceedings under relevant provisions of the A.P.Excise Act were initiated before the first respondent. The petitioner claims tohave made an application before the first respondent for release of the vehicleand states that though several months have elapsed, no orders have beenpassed thereon.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader forProhibition & Excise.

Even before the vehicle could be registered, it is alleged to have been used intransporting the liquor. The truth or otherwise of the allegations against theowner or the user of the vehicle needs to be considered in the proceedingspending before the first respondent. The continued detention of the vehicle doesnot sub-serve the purposes either of the Department or of the owner, muchless, the financier. The petitioner claims to have made an application before thefirst respondent several months back.

Taking the totality of the circumstances into account, the writ petition isdisposed of directing that the first respondent shall release the vehicle referredto above to the petitioner, on its furnishing bank guarantee for a sum ofRs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). It is made clear that the release of thevehicle in favour of the petitioner shall be without any prejudice to the rights ofthe fourth respondent. No order as to costs.

------------------------

28.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Hyderabad,Hyderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2 The Station House Officer, Pargi Police Station, Pargi, Ranga ReddyDistrict.District.

3 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, A.P.High CourtBuildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

4 Two CD copies.