IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10528 of 2005 Between: Telugu Kukkala Chinaiah @ chinna S/o.Chinna Kistanna R/o.Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar District at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Gadwal Circle at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the petitioners Eicher VanNo.A.P.22 U 7022 in Crime No.188/04-05 dt.11.12.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent in not releasing the vanfor interim custody pending confiscation proceedings before him and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 10528 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner questions the action of the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Gadwal Circle, second respondent herein, in seizing and retaining his Eicher Van bearing No. A.P.22 U 7022 in Crime No. 188/04-05 dated 11.12.2004 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar District-first respondent herein to give interim custody of Eicher Van, pending confiscation proceedings before him. It is stated that the said Eicher Van was seized by the second respondent, while it was transporting 52 plastic bags of illicit liquor, each containing 250 sachets of Arrack of Karnataka State. He registered a case in C.O.R.No. 188/2004-05 dated 11.12.2004 under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and as the vehicle is liable for confiscation, the same has been produced before the first respondent. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 28.4.2005 directed interim custody of the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee by the petitioner for half of the amount assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and that the petitioner shall also furnish security of immovable property for the remaining half of the amount within four weeks from that date. It is stated that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order. It is not known whether the confiscation proceedings are pending or not. The present Writ Petition is filed only for the interim custody of the vehicle and as the petitioner has not complied with the interim order, I am of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, any confiscation orders passed by the first respondent are subject to appeal before the Commissioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the confiscation order, he can avail the alternative remedy available to him under law. No order as to costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 31.03.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar District at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Gadwal Circle at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 2CCs to. 4. 2CD copies