IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14225 of 2008 Between: Mumtaj W/o. Late Shmedjohn R/o. Shameer Mohalla, Near Swapana Ice Factory, Mubagaldown Village, Kolar District, Karnataka State. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Nellore. 2 The Station House Office, Prohibition and Excise Station, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not handing over M.O.17 lorry in SC.No.256 of 1999 i.e. lorry bearing No. CAM.No.3625 as per the direction of Hon'ble I-Additional Sessions Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases to the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to handover the vehicle from the custody of 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.K.RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 14225 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not handing over the lorry bearing No. CAM 3625 (M.O.17 in S.C.No.256 of 1999 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Cases under N.D.& P.S. Act-cum-I.Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam District) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, the husband of the petitioner by name late Ahmed John was the owner of the lorry bearing No. CAM 3625, which is marked as M.O.17 in S.C.No.256 of 1999 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for N.D.& P.S. Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam District. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the judgment passed on 08.07.2003 in the aforementioned Sessions Case, wherein the said vehicle marked as M.O.17 was found to be not liable for confiscation and the same was ordered to be returned to the owner, she submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for release of the said vehicle to her as she is the sole legal heir of her deceased husband, who died pending the said Sessions Case, enclosing therewith the documents like death certificate, family certificate, residence certificate to show her eligibility in claiming the aforesaid vehicle, but the same was not considered by the 2nd respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner got issued notice to the 2nd respondent, for which a reply was sent by the 2nd respondent suggesting the petitioner to get permission from the Court for custody of the said vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being no other claimant in respect of the said lorry and the directions passed in the said Sessions Case to release the vehicle, the respondents are not handing over the same to her. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the respondents admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle, but with a view to be careful and to avoid future complications, the petitioner is being insisted upon to produce the succession certificate. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity of insisting the petitioner to produce the succession certificate in the absence of any other claimant in respect of the said vehicle. However, the respondents can take precautions to avoid future complications by way of seeking indemnity bond from the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of directing the respondents to release the lorry bearing No. CAM 3625, which is marked as M.O.17 in S.C.No.256 of 1999 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Cases under N.D.& P.S. Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, in favour of the petitioner on her furnishing the indemnity bond. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.11.2008 v v