HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.11120 of 2010 Between: Tejavath Krishna ………Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Prohibition & Excise Department, Khammam, Khammam District and another. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11120 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and this writ petition is disposed of with their consent at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a two wheeler bearing Regn. No. A.P.20 AA 4377. On 04-11-2009, the 2nd respondent found 31 nips of Brandy being transported in the said vehicle illegally. The 2nd respondent seized the contraband along with the vehicle and also arrested the petitioner. A case has been registered in C.O.R.477/2009-10, dated 04-11-2009, for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The contraband and the vehicle were reportedly produced before the 1st respondent for eventual proceedings under the A.P. Prohibition Act. The 1st respondent issued notice in Cr.No.48/2010/A1/P& Ex/DC/KMM, dated 08-02-2010, as required under Section 13(A) of the A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 (Act No.17 of 1995), proposing to confiscate the contraband and the vehicle as well. 2. It is stated that the petitioner responded to the aforesaid show-cause-notice and gave a reply through advocate on 18-03-2010. A perusal of the reply, dated 18-03-2010, shows that the petitioner denied the commission of offence as alleged against him stating that he was implicated in a false case by some official persons. The petitioner also sought for interim release of the vehicle on appropriate conditions. Contending that the 1st respondent has neither considered the reply nor released the vehicle, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. In substance, the petitioner denied his involvement in the commission of offence. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was seized by the 1st respondent on 04-11-2009 purportedly for having been used for transportation of liquor illegally. On enquiry, if the allegation is found to be correct, the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 12 of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The 1st respondent, therefore, has initiated proceedings and issued notice as required under Section 13(A) of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. Such action cannot be found fault with. Whether the petitioner has not committed offence as alleged against him is a matter to be enquired into and decided by the 1st respondent. This Court cannot go into the said disputed fact. 4. The learned counsel, however, contends that five months have elapsed since the vehicle has been seized and despite a reply has been filed as long back as on 18-03-2010, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders either finally or ordered release of vehicle as an interim measure. Consequently, the vehicle is deteriorating in its condition and would become unroadworthy in due course of time. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the vehicle be released on appropriate terms and conditions. 5. Having regard to the fact that considerable time has lapsed since 04-11-2009 and there appears to be no progress in the enquiry even after the petitioner submitted his explanation on 18-03-2010 and that the vehicle, if not put to use, would loose its utility, it is appropriate to direct the release of the vehicle on certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle bearing Regn. No.AP20 AA 4377 in favour of the petitioner, however, on the condition of the petitioner depositing the value of the vehicle as assessed by the 1st respondent and on filing undertaking that he would not alienate or otherwise encumber the vehicle in any manner alter the vehicle and produce it as and when required by the 1st respondent. The amount so deposited shall be subjected to the result of the orders that may be passed by the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 12th May 2010 kvr