IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 19523 of 2008 Between: Azeez Ahmed Khan @ Abdul Ejaj Ahmed Khan S/o. Abdul Rasheed Khan Ap 01 W 5503, R/o. H.No. 8-39, Luxettipet, District Adilabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Karimnagar Division, District Karimnagar. 2 The State of A.P.through Station House Officer, Police Station, Dandepally, District Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order, or orders, direction or directions, or issue a writ, more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent no.1 herein to release the seized vehicle of the petitioner herein i.e. Tata Van bearing Regd.No. A.P. 01 w 5503, which was seized by the respondent No.2 herein under Cr.No. 4 of 2008 dated 10.1.2008 of P.S.Dandepally of Adilabad District, and declare the seizure of vehicle and as well as in action of respondent no.1 in not releasing the seized vehicle, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and against the Mandatory provisions of A.P., Excise Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.CHANDRASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19523 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP01 W 5503, which was seized by the second respondent for the alleged oﬀence under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Consequently, the ﬁrst respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a show cause notice dated 03-03-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the vehicle in question should not be conﬁscated. The petitioner submitted his explanation and also ﬁled an application seeking release of the vehicle. However, the ﬁrst respondent failed to consider the same and no orders have been passed so far. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction for release of the vehicle. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and since the proceedings are pending before the ﬁrst respondent, though I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, having regard to the fact that the seizure was aﬀected long back in the month of January, 2008, there shall be a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to complete the enquiry following due process of law and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 08-09-2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. B/o KLP