IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.23421 of 2004 Between: B.Satya Goud. … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash orders, dated 28-8-2003 and 12-8-2004 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively. The petitioner is the owner of Allwyn Nissan Van bearing registration No. AP 28T-92. The said vehicle was intercepted by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Domakonda Excise Station, on 29-8-2002 at 9-00 A.M., near a place called Satyanarayana Sugar Mill, Peddamallareddy village, and found 20 wooden cases, each containing 24 bottles of toddy, being transported in the said vehicle. He then seized the said vehicle and the contraband, and registered a case in Crime No.120/2002-03 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”). To the show-cause notice, dated 29-10-2002, issued by respondent No.2 proposing to confiscate the said property, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. The primary authority-respondent No.2 held that the Chemical Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Nizamabad, reported that the toddy was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Therefore, respondent No.2 passed order, dated 28-8-2003, confiscating the contraband and the said vehicle. The appeal filed against the said order before respondent No.1 having been dismissed by order, dated 12-8-2004, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to submit an explanation to the show-cause notice issued by respondent No.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is averred that though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, there is no specific allegation against him; and that the petitioner was not called upon to submit his explanation. It is further averred that no allegation was made in the show-cause notice that the petitioner’s vehicle was found transporting I.D. Liquor or toddy. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader placed before this Court the relevant record, which contains the show- cause notice, wherein it is stated as under: “Whereas on the 29th day of August 2002 at Mullupally Cross road near Peddamallareddy the property described hereunder: 1) Allwyn Nissan Van bearing No.AP 28-T-92 2) (20) wooden cases each containing (24) bottles was seized in the crime No.120/2002-03 dt.29-8-02 of S.H.O. Domakonda was produced before me (Deputy Commr., of Proh. and Excise, Nizamabad) alleging that the said property is involved in violation of the provisions of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. I am satisfied from the record that there are sufficient reasons/grounds to proceed under Section 46(A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. You are hereby required to show cause as to why the said property should not be confiscated. You are hereby informed to appear before me within (15) days after receipt of this notice, either in person or through Advocate and may make representation in writing against the proposed confiscation. Date this 29th day of October, 2002”. In my opinion, by mentioning that the vehicle was seized under Crime No.120/2002-03 on 29-8-2002 on the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Act; and that the authority was satisfied from the record that there are sufficient reasons and grounds to proceed with Section 46(A) of the Act, the petitioner was sufficiently informed of the reasons for initiating the proceedings of confiscation. The petitioner was also clearly asked to show cause as to why the property should not be confiscated. Therefore, I am unable to accept the petitioner’s plea that neither specific allegations were made nor the petitioner was required to submit his explanation. Having failed to offer his explanation, inspite of his receiving the show-cause notice, the petitioner has failed to utilize the valuable opportunity given to him to contest the proposed confiscation proceedings. Having regard to the findings rendered by both the authorities that the vehicle was found transporting the adulterated toddy, it cannot be said that confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle suffers from any illegality. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 08-7-2010 MNR