IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12355 of 2006 Between: B.V.R. Reddy S/o. Thimma Reddy R/o.H.No. 2/118, Thirumala Nagar, Adoni, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner , Prohibition & Excise Kurnool. .....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 or order or direction more in the nature of writ of Certiorari to call for the records in CR.No. 2743/2005/CPE/D4 on the ﬁle of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and quash the orders passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad in CR.No. 2743/2005/CPE/D4 dt. 13-4- 2005 conﬁrming the orders of the 2nd Respondent passed in Rc No. B1 489/2004 dt. 5-1-2005 after declaring the same as arbitrary and illegal in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 12355 of 2006 Oral Order: The petitioners claims to be the owner of vehicle, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 21B 6000. The vehicle was seized along with 150 liters illicit distilled liquor on 24-08-2004 during a route watch by the Excise staﬀ on the Koilakuntla to Kamalapuri Road. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner-owner on 24-09-2004 proposing conﬁscation of the vehicle in terms of the provisions of Sections 12 and 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 in view of the involvement of vehicle in the transportation of ID liquor. The petitioner did not respond within the time stipulated or at all. Eventually, the primary authority – the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool by order dated 05-01-2005 directed confiscation of the vehicle. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent. By the order dated 13-04-2006, the 1st respondent rejected the appeal. This writ petition assails the primary and appellate orders inter alia on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was aﬀorded to the petitioner. In paragraph No.2 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner states that he did not submit his explanation within ﬁfteen (15) days time aﬀorded by the show cause notice dated 24-09-2004 since he was under the erroneous impression that he could submit his explanation at the time of personal hearing and also on account of lack of relevant documents to enable him to furnish to the explanation. These are not really germane reasons for failing to submit an explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that as a consequence of his inadvertent conduct in not furnishing the explanation, he suﬀers an incomparable injury viz., conﬁscation of the vehicle and in the interests of equity and justice an opportunity may be provided to submit his explanation. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in token of his bona ﬁdes and to recompense the injury suﬀered by the State on account of the protracted proceedings consequent on setting aside of primary or appellate orders and remanding the matter to the primary authority for re-consideration, the petitioner undertakes to pay Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousand only) to the State and avail the opportunity of participation in the primary proceedings by filing an explanation. Having considered the matter and having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s vehicle has been conﬁscated and in view of and accepting the undertaking of the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousands only) to the State and subject to the petitioner fulﬁlling such obligation to pay the amount, the writ petition is disposed of as under:- On the petitioner depositing the amount of Rs.5,000- 00 (Rupees Five thousands only) by way of demand draft drawn on a nationalized bank in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool, within two weeks from today, the order of the 2 nd respondent dated 05- 01-2005 directing conﬁscation as conﬁrmed by the order of the 1st respondent dated 13-04-2006 are both set aside. The petitioner may ﬁle an explanation responding to the show cause notice dated 24-09-2004 issued by the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from today. If the petitioner submits the explanation to the show cause notice dated 24- 9-2004,within the time stipulated above, the first respondent shall de novo consider and pass appropriate orders in the proceedings. Even if no explanation is submitted within the time stipulated above, the 2nd respondent shall pass an order on merits. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression by this on the merits of the petitioner’s claim that his absence of knowledge exonerates and exempts the vehicle from conﬁscation. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs.5,000-00 within the time stipulated above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 31-07-2008 pvks