IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11668 of 2004 Between: Mohd . Ahmed, S/o Mohd. Yousuf , 18-9-29/15, chandrayanagutta, Keshavgiri, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad 3 Prohibition & Exicse Inspector, SHO., Maheshwaram Ranga Reddy District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in calling fro records in respect of order passed in Cr.No.8682/03/CPE/04 dt. 10/11/2003 of the 1st Respondent conﬁrming the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent authority in proceedings Rc.No.C7/5134/02 dt. 05/03/2003 and quash the same as the same are in gross violation of Articles 14,21 of the constitution of India and also in gross violation of principles of Natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN 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.11668 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of Allwyn Nissan Vehicle bearing No.ABT 4569. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector and Station House Oﬃcer, Maheshwaram Excise Station, during the route watch on 06.10.2002 seized the vehicle when it was carrying huge quantity of black jaggery. Crime No.375/02-03 was registered under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. After receiving the report, the second respondent passed orders on 05.03.2003 conﬁscating the vehicle under Section 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner unsuccessfully ﬁled an appeal before the ﬁrst respondent, which was dismissed on 10.11.2003. In this writ petition ﬁled challenging the order of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise conﬁrming order of the second respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of conﬁscation is bad for want of notice, that petitioner had no knowledge that his vehicle was used for commission of excise oﬀence, and that there is no prohibition for transporting black jaggery. This Court while perusing the order of the ﬁrst respondent noticed the following observations therein. …A perusal of the records reveals that the driver/accused was found transporting 100 ltrs of I.D.liquor in two cans each can containing 50 ltrs of I.D liquor. In the panchanama accused No.2 N.Anjaiah stated that he was doing kirana business since last three years and selling black jaggery, Navasagaram and alum to the ID liquor manufacturers in and around Harshaguda thanda. On demand the accused No.2 N.Anjaiah did not produce any way-bill, permit, purchase receipt in respect of black jaggery, Navasagaram and alum. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that he has given the vehicle on lease to the driver, the contention that he has no knowledge of the alleged oﬀence is not tenable… The order of the Deputy Commissioner would belie any averment made by the Commissioner that vehicle was found transporting 100 litres of ID liquor. This would show that the Commissioner has not applied mind with the facts of the case and passed order in a routine manner. This is an incurable defect, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of ﬁrst respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the ﬁrst respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and dispose of the matter in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 23.10.2008 vs To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition &Excise Hyderabad 3 Prohibition & Exicse Inspector, SHO., Maheshwaram Ranga Reddy District. 4 2CCs to G.P for Prohibition & Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}