WP/23126/2004 of S.M.Investment Vittalvadi, Hyderabad, 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 : 23126 of 2004

Between:

S.M.Investment Vittalvadi, Hyderabad,

rep.by its Anmaiah, S/o.Narsaiah,

R/o.Laxmidevpally Village, Pargi mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

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

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

3 Kolluri Srisailam, S/o Ananthaiah, 20 years, Auto driver, R/o Sultanpur(V),Pargi(M), R.R.District.

4 Anmaiah, S/o Pedda Narsimha, Owner ofAuto, Pargi, R.R.district.

(The third respondent and the fourth respondent were impleaded as per the orders of theCourt in W.P.M.P.No.30795 of 2004 dated 23.12.2004 and W.P.M.P.No.31449

of 2004 dated 28.12.2004 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 28 V 4447 seized in Crime No. 92/2004 forthwith.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI SHANKARCounsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISECounsel for Respondents 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. AP28V 4447 by the fourth respondent. The said vehicle is said to have beenseized by the second respondent on the ground that it was used in transportingthe liquor. Proceedings under relevant provisions of the A.P. Excise Act wereinitiated before the first respondent. The petitioner claims to have made anapplication before the first respondent for release of the vehicle and states thatthough several months have elapsed, no orders have been passed thereon.

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

The vehicle is alleged to have been used in transporting the liquor. The truth orotherwise of the allegations against the owner or the user of the vehicle needsto be considered in the proceedings pending before the first respondent. Thecontinued detention of the vehicle does not subserve the purposes either of theDepartment or of the owner much less the financier. The petitioner claims tohave made an application before the first 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 the vehicle 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 & Excise, Hyderabad, Hyderabad Division, Nampally, Hyderabad.

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

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

4 Two CD copies.