WP/24703/2004 of P.Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition AND Excise on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 24703 of 2004

Between:

P.Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Pedda Sanjeeva Kondaiah H.No.30/726-A, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Bommala Satram, Nandyal Town, Kurnool District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool 3 The Sub-Division Prohibition & Excise officer Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.

.....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 or direction , more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the Respondents in notreleasing the Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP. 21W 2013 to the petitioner pendingAppeal before the 1st respondent as illegal arbitrary and unjust and No.AP.21W 2013 to the petitioner pending appeal before the 1st respondent in theinterest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SRINIVASULU REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:

The auto rickshaw of the petitioner bearing No.AP 21W 2013 was seized by thethird respondent on 19.09.2004, on the allegation that it was involved intransporting 100 liters of illicit distilled liquor. Proceedings were initiated underSection 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act before the second respondent. Throughorders dated 27.11.2004, the second respondent confiscated the vehicle of thepetitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the firstrespondent, together with an application for interim custody of the vehicle. Thepetitioner states that the first respondent has not passed any orders so far.Hence, this writ petition.

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

On receiving a show cause notice from the second respondent, in theproceedings initiated under Section 34(a) of the Act, the petitioner made anapplication for interim custody of the vehicle. The second respondent took upthe main proceedings and directed confiscation of the vehicle. The petitionerpreferred an appeal before the first respondent. The legality or otherwise of theorder of confiscation, needs to be considered by the first respondent. However,the continued detention of the vehicle would cause undue hardship to thepetitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is depending on the vehicle for hislivelihood. The interests of the State can be protected by requiring the petitionerto furnish adequate bank guarantee for a reasonable amount. The autorickshaw is said to be an old one.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition isdisposed of directing that the third respondent shall release the vehicle bearingNo. AP 21W 2013 in favour of the petitioner on his furnishing bank guaranteefor a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). There shall be no order as to costs.

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

30.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

3 The Sub-Division Prohibition & Excise officer Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. Kadapa District.

4 2CCs to the G.P. For Prohibition and Excise, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

5 2 CD copies.