IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13132 of 2005 Between: Smt. B. Mithilesh Devi W/o Vasudev Singh R/o BDL Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad 3 The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings passed by the 1st respondent in Cr. No. 19921/2003/CPE/D4, dt 15-2-2005 conﬁrming the orders of the Second respondent passed in proceedings S.Cr. No. B5/686/2003, dates 24-9-2003 in conﬁscating the Tata Sumo bearing NO. AP 11W 3409 as illegal, arbitrary bad in law, contrary to the procedure established under A.P. Excise Act and violative of principle of natural justice and consequently set a side the same and pass such other or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances, of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI M.DASHARATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13132 of 2005 ORDER: This is an old matter of 2005. When the matter was called on 24.10.2008, learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. Today the matter is appearing very high up in the list under the said caption. In spite of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent and there is no representation on his behalf. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed for default/non-prosecution. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 29.10.2008 vs To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad 3 The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad 4 2CCs to G.P for Prohibition and Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}