HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.23737 of 2008 Date: September 21, 2011 Between: M/s.Vastav Financiers, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Arvind Jain, S/o.Kantilal, R/o.3-6-142/B, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., at Excise Bhavan, J.N.Road, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed in Cr.No.C4/1360/2006, dated 24.11.2007, by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Ranga Reddy Division, as affirmed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, vide order dated 10.10.2008 passed in Cr.No.918/2008/CPE/D4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under: The Prohibition & Excise officials, SHO, Ameerpet conducted route watch on 27.07.2006 at about 11.30 a.m., before Balkampet Yellamma Temple, Ameerpet, intercepted the auto bearing No. AP10U-2497 and found 120 liters of I.D. liquor therein and registered a case in COR No.14/06-07 on 27.07.2006 under Sections 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Petitioner claims that he is the financier of the said seized vehicle. Pending confiscation proceedings, he filed a representation before the 2nd respondent for release of the vehicle and accordingly the same was released on his furnishing fixed deposit receipt for Rs.7,800/- along with no- objection certificate from the owner of the vehicle by name Smt.Shama and also on giving two sureties. Pursuant to seizure and registration of crime, confiscation proceedings were initiated and the petitioner and other accused were given notices. On the ground that the petitioner has not filed any explanation to the show-cause notice and in view of the involvement of the vehicle in question for transportation of I.D.Liquor, the primary authority, i.e. the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the said vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 13 of the Act by order dated 24.11.2007 passed in Cr.No.C4/1360/2006. As against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. the 1st respondent-Commissioner, who, by order passed in Cr.No.918/2008/CPE/D4, dated 10.10.2008, confirmed the order of confiscation passed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that by Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the vehicle in question was involved in the alleged transportation of I.D.Liquor without the knowledge of the petitioner; as such, the same is not liable for confiscation. It is further submitted that, for release of the said vehicle, fixed deposit receipt has already been produced; as such it is released in favour of the petitioner; therefore the impugned order of confiscation, as affirmed by the appellate authority, is liable to be set-aside. It is to be noted that the owner of the vehicle is one Smt.Shama and it appears the petitioner herein, who is the financier of the vehicle, has approached the 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner, during pendency of the confiscation proceedings, seeking release of the vehicle, in view of the no- objection given by the owner of the vehicle; as such the same was released. The owner of the vehicle, Smt.Shama, has not questioned the order of confiscation and even in this writ petition, she is not made party. The petitioner, who is the financier of the vehicle, questions the order of confiscation on the ground that he has no knowledge of the commission of the alleged offence. It is to be noted that the petitioner, who is the financier of the vehicle, cannot question the order of confiscation of the vehicle and it is the owner of the vehicle who has to question the same. As is evident, the vehicle in question is involved in transportation of I.D.Liquor in violation of the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, no explanation is filed to the show-cause notice issued in the confiscation proceedings. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the order passed in Cr.No.C4/1360/2006, dated 24.11.2007, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Ranga Reddy Division, as confirmed vide order passed in Cr.No.918/2008/CPE/D4, dated 10.10.2008, by the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 21, 2011 MRR