HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32818 of 2011 Date:14.12.2011 Between: Desireddi Seethi Reddy ..... Petitioner And: The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Government of A.P., Hyderabad And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Pamulety Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing proceedings in Rc.No.179/2011/B2, dated 02.11.2011, of respondent No.2, this Writ Petition is filed. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 02 X 8565 of Mahindra Bolero make was found used for carrying 15 urea bags, each containing 50 kgs of black jaggery and the said vehicle was seized. On the petitioner approaching respondent No.2, the vehicle was released subject to the petitioner furnishing Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.80,000/-. Respondent No.2 has issued notice to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings to show cause why the seized vehicle should not be confiscated. At the hearing, Sri V.Pamulety, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in response to the show cause notice, his client has filed his explanation and that, in anticipation of seizure of the vehicle, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. He also submitted that while the petitioner’s vehicle is bearing registration No.AP 03 X 8565, in the show cause notice its number is shown as AP 02 X 8565. In my opinion, this Writ Petition is pre-mature. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 inherently lacks jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice. Having already submitted his explanation, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court at this stage even before an order has been passed by respondent No.2. If there is any discrepancy in the registration number of the vehicle, the petitioner is entitled to bring the same to the notice of respondent No.2. This ground by itself is not enough for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy if and when any order adverse to the petitioner’s interests is passed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40793 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14thDecember 2011 DR