IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19389 of 2008 Date: 7th December, 2010 Between: Smt.T.Lakshmi Parvathi .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19389 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order of first respondent in Cr.No.14352/2004/CPE/D4 dated 8.11.2005 confirming the order of second respondent in Cr.No.1957/2002/P&E/B3 dated 7.11.2003 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of provisions of A.P. Excise Act. It appears, the lorry owned by the petitioner was seized by third respondent on 10.10.2002 at 10 A.M. on the ground that the lorry was loaded with 70 bags of black jaggery, each weighing 50 kgs and the officers also searched nearby shed and found 30 bags of black jaggery and found two running stills, one plastic can with 10 litres of ID liquor and found one motor cycle. In the order passed by the second respondent, it was stated that there was no valid permit to transport the black jaggery from Penubelli Yatalakunta village and Prohibition and Excise Officials have also destroyed two running stills and seized 10 ltrs. of I.D. liquor and 150 packets of I.D. liquor packets each 100 ml. total 15 ltrs. of I.D. liquor on the carriage of Splendour bearing No.AP- 37-6428. Thus, it is clear that no liquor was found in the lorry, which was seized by the respondents. There is no prohibition under the law for transportation of black jaggery, nor there is any evidence to show that this black jaggery was being transported for the purpose of manufacturing liquor etc. It is all on mere assumptions and presumptions the lorry of the petitioner was seized. The appeal filed by the petitioner before first respondent was also failed. I am of the considered opinion that in the absence of any iota of evidence to say that the black jaggery is being transported for the purpose of manufacturing liquor, the officials on mere surmises and conjectures cannot seize the lorry and confiscate the same under the law. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.19389 of 2008 7.12.2010