THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25757 OF 2008 DATED:26.8.2011 Between: B. Rama Maddilety Reddy … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.25757 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the owner of the jeep bearing No.AP 21V 9236, questioning the order of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dt.18.9.2008 in Cr. No.630/2008/CPE/D4, in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, dt.18.12.2007 passed in Proc. Cr. No.B1/194/2007. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.4.2007 at 4.00 p.m., during the vehicles checking, the Inspector of Police, Banaganapalli Police Station, has seized the vehicle owned by the petitioner when it was proceeding from Owk Road to Banaganapalli, on the ground that it was carrying 125 litres of I.D. liquor in plastic canes illegally and seized the same under the cover of panchanama by registering a crime in Cr. No.39/2007 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on the file of Banaganapalli Police Station. Basing on the report of the seizure, alleging that the said transportation of the I.D. arrack was in contravention of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, proceedings were initiated for confiscation of the vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, has issued show cause notice to the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, to show cause as to why the jeep should not be confiscated to the State for illegal transportation of the contraband. Though the petitioner has received the show cause notice, he has not filed explanation. The primary authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, by recording a finding that the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notice and in view of the involvement of the vehicle of the petitioner in Crime No.39/2007 for illegal transportation of the arrack, and for violation of the provisions of the A.P. Prohibition Act, ordered for confiscation of the vehicle to the State, in exercise of powers under Section 13 of the said Act. As against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, dt.18.12.2007, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, and the said appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dt.18.9.2008, confirming the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dt.18.12.2007. Hence, the writ petition. In this writ petition, the only contention of advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not given the vehicle to Sri Nageswara Reddy, who was found transporting the arrack illegally in the jeep. It is submitted that the said transportation was undertaken without the knowledge of the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle and as such there are no grounds to confiscate the vehicle. Inasmuch as the involvement of the vehicle for transportation is not in dispute. In view of the seizure affected by the respondents, seizing the vehicle along with 125 litres of arrack, it is clear that it is without any permission from the competent authority. The vehicle was used for transportation of intoxicant. When the seizure of the vehicle along with the arrack is not disputed, only on the ground that the petitioner had no knowledge about using of the vehicle for illegal transportation, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned orders. As owner of the vehicle, it is his obligation to see that the vehicle is not used for illegal purposes. When it is proved beyond doubt that the vehicle was used for illegal transportation of the arrack, in view of the powers conferred under the A.P. Prohibition Act, coupled with the provisions under Sections 45 and 46 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the vehicle is liable for confiscation in view of the commission of offence under the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. As there is no other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and as the involvement of the vehicle in illegal transportation of arrack is not disputed, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of confiscation as confirmed by the appellate authority. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26.8.2011 bnr