THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5237 of 2004 Date: 16.7.2010 Between: B. Chiranjeevi ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise and others.. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner s : Sri Ch.C. Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.P. for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5237 of 2004 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order dated 3.11.2003 of respondent No.1 confirming order dated 17.4.2002 of respondent No.2. The petitioner is the owner of a jeep bearing Registration No. AEN 541. On 13.12.2001, the police of Podalakur Police Station, intercepted the said vehicle at a place called Thatiparti and found the vehicle carrying 582 bottles of IML of 180 M.L. each, and seized the said stocks along with the jeep. Crime No. 173 of 2001 was registered under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. In response to the show cause notice issued by respondent No. 2, the petitioner failed to submit any objections. Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 17.4.2002 confiscating the liquor along with the vehicle. The said order was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.1 by his order dated 27-10/3-11-2003. Assailing these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, Sri Ch.C. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rapur addressed a letter dated 18.1.2001 to the Inspector of Police, Podalakur, wherein, he has clearly stated that the seized liquor was brought from the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, Devarapalem, Nellore. He also issued a Certificate stating that the seized stock is genuine and duty paid liquor and was brought from the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, Devarapalem, Nellore for being sold by I.L. shops licensees, Podalakur. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Certificate relied upon by the petitioner pertained to Crime No. 170 of 2001; while the petitioner’s case pertains to Crime No. 173 of 2001. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to offer his explanation. The petitioner has also failed to place before either of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the above mentioned Certificate. Even a perusal of the said Certificate supports the stand of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the same relates to Crime No. 170 of 2001 while the petitioner is concerned with Crime No. 173 of 2001. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to rely upon the above mentioned Certificate. No other point is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 6828 of 2004 and W.V.M.P. No. 2933 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 16th July, 2010 pnb