IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 18236 of 2001 BETWEEN: D. M. Mahabub S/o. Imam Sab, R/o. Gandhi Nagar, Chellikera, Karnataka State. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur. 3 The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rayadurg, Anantapur 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Rc.No.87/2000/B2 dated 3.7.2000 as illegal arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to release the vehicle Lorry bearing No. CTX 8198 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No. CTX 8198 and the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rayadurg, Anantapur District seized the said vehicle on 23.12.1999 while it was said to have been transporting 200 polythene bags containing 300 arrack sachets each totaling to 60,000 arrack sachets and arrested the driver of the vehicle viz. Chakali Venkatesulu (A1) and the cleaner, Uppara Eswara (A2) and registered a case in cr.No.49/1999-2000 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rayadurg for the offence under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. 2. Petitioner submits that he filed an application through his counsel before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, for the interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.03.2000 ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing Bank Guarantee/FDR for Rs.95,000/-; third party surety for Rs.80,000/- and filing an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle shall not be sold or transferred to any third party pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. As the petitioner could not comply with the said conditions, the vehicle could not be released. He further submits that, while so, without issuing a show cause notice to him for confiscation, a show cause notice was issued to his counsel on 24.04.2000 and as the counsel failed to file an explanation, the impugned order dated 03.07.2000 has been passed by the second respondent. Questioning the same this writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle has not been given any reasonable opportunity by issuing a show cause notice, therefore, the show cause notice issued to his counsel is not valid or binding on him, therefore, the confiscation of the vehicle is illegal and unsustainable. 3. Petitioner is not disputing the issuance of the show cause notice to his counsel and it is his case that he has not received the show cause notice through his counsel. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel made a representation/filed an explanation to the show cause notice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the confiscation proceedings have been passed on 03.07.2000 and the vehicle was also auctioned and disposed of in July 2001. 5. The writ petition has been filed questioning the confiscation order after the vehicle has been disposed in July 2001. However, as against the confiscation order an appeal lies to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner without availing the appellate remedy straightaway filed this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 16, 2008 DSK