IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 7537 of 2004 Between: Yakoob Mahammed, S/o.Rahman, R/o.Mangalagiri,Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The S.H.O.,and Sub Inspector of police, P.S.Kodad Town, Nalgonda Dist. 2 The Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar Division,Mahaboobnagar Dist. .....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 1st respondent in seizing the Mini Lorry bearing No; AP-37-T-9358 on 24-03-2004 under Crime No.17/2004 on the file of P.S.,Kodad Town, Nalgonda District as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the Mini Lorry bearing No: AP-37-T-9358 in favour of the petitioner and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in seizing the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP-37-T-9358 on 24.03.2004 in Crime No.17 of 2004 of Police Station, Chilkur, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the said vehicle was seized while it was transporting ten bags of black jaggery and 50 kgs of alum and two litres of I.D. liquor. There is no prohibition for purchase and sale of black jaggery and alum. But, if they are used in manufacturing of I.D. liquor, they are liable for confiscation as they are come within the meaning of excisable articles. But, in the instant case, it was contended that two liters of liquor was found in the said vehicle and therefore, the said vehicle is liable to be seized. That being so, if the said vehicle has been seized, the competent authority is the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to deal with the matter as to whether the said vehicle is to be confiscated or released. However, this Court while admitting the writ petition directed the release of the said vehicle on condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee of the value as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector and further directed not to alienate the said vehicle. As the said vehicle has been seized for the offence under Sections 7(a) and 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act, the confiscation authority is only the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall be kept open and can be revived subject to passing of final orders. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:17.04.2008 Ccm To 1. 2 ccs 2. 2 cd copies