HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26476 of 2010 Date : 11.03.2011 Between : E. Vijay Kumar. …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Ex-II) Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26476 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to respondents 1 to 3 to release his vehicle bearing No.AP-22-W-9697. Petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Maxx Pik Up Junior-2 vehicle bearing No.AP-22-W-9697. It is his case that he has hired his vehicle to the 4th respondent- Society, which is a licensee to vend toddy as per the rules framed under the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. It is stated that the vehicle is hired to collect toddy and sell the same in the licensed premises and also to carry excess toddy for selling to the other Societies. When the vehicle was carrying toddy of the 4th respondent-Society, it was seized on 3rd of July 2009, by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector-cum-Station House Officer of Kodangal Excise Station, and a case was registered in Crime No.270/09-10 on the same day. The seizure was reported to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar Division, alleging violation of provisions under the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. It is the case of the petitioner that he was carrying excess toddy of the 4th respondent-Society, which was sold to another Society, as such, there was no violation of any provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, in view of the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, dated 19.09.2007, issued in Cr.No.10335-07 CPE E 1. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the said circular instructions, when excess toddy is being transported from one Society to another, no special permit is required, to undertake such transportation. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was not produced before any Court, so as to invoke provisions under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for its release. It is stated that the petitioner has purchased the said vehicle by obtaining financial assistance from Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited, Kurnool, and due to illegal seizure of his vehicle, he is suffering a lot. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the circular relied on by the petitioner is issued only for the year 2007-08, and subsequently, no such circular instructions were issued. It is further stated that as per the A.P. Excise (Grant of license to sell toddy, conditions of license and tapping of excise trees) Rules, 2007, there is no provision to allow any Toddy Co-operative Society to sell excess toddy to any other Society. It is stated that as the vehicle belonged to the petitioner was involved in transportation of toddy from one Tappers’ Co-operative Society to another, and as the same is in violation of Rule 3 of A.P. Excise (Transportation of Maximum Quantity of Intoxicants) Rules, 1972 and Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the vehicle was seized. On the aforesaid grounds, contending that the vehicle is seized for valid reasons, the 2nd respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. When the matter came up for hearing on last occasion, and when it was argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that no proceedings are initiated for confiscation of the vehicle, it was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that now, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has initiated proceedings by issuing show cause notice, dated 28th February 2011, issued in Cr.No.B2/367/09, calling upon the petitioner to explain within a period of 15 days, as to why his vehicle should not be confiscated. Sections 45 and 46 of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968, deal with confiscation of the vehicles seized in connection with the offences registered under the Act. Under Section 45 of the Act, whenever an offence is committed under the Act, the respondent-authorities are empowered to seize the intoxicant, materials, still, utencil, any receptacle, package, implements or apparatus by means of which, such offence has been committed. Under Section 46(1) of the Act, whenever a vehicle, which is liable for confiscation, is seized under Section 45 of the Act, the officer seizing and detaining such vehicle shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the seized property before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, who has got jurisdiction over the area, to order for confiscation of the vehicle. In this case, it is to be noticed that the vehicle was seized as early as on 03.07.2009, and after such seizure, no follow up action is taken. Only when there was a query from this Court as to whether any confiscation proceedings are initiated or not, the learned Government Pleader has produced the show cause notice, dated 28.02.2011, issued in Cr.No.B2/367/09. As per the aforesaid provisions of the Act, when a vehicle is seized for illegal transportation of toddy, it is obligatory on the part of the seizing authority to produce such vehicle before the Deputy Commissioner without unreasonable delay, so as to initiate proceedings for confiscation. In the instant case, although it is the case of the petitioner that he has not violated the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and is seeking the benefit of circular instructions to undertake such transportation, there is no reason for not initiating the proceedings for confiscation of vehicle, for about two long years after seizure. Once the vehicle is seized in exercise of powers under Section 45 of the Act, the authorities have no authority or jurisdiction to detain the vehicle without initiating confiscation proceedings for such an abnormal period of nearly two years. On this ground alone, the petitioner is entitled for release of vehicle by declaring the seizure itself as illegal. Although it is pleaded that the petitioner has violated the rules by undertaking such transportation, in view of the abnormal delay and laches on the part of respondents in initiating proceedings after seizure, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has already suffered heavily, as he is deprived of his vehicle for the last about two years, and hence, it is not open for respondents to proceed further, at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the seizure of petitioner’s vehicle bearing No.AP-22-W-9697, is hereby quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner, forthwith. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th March 2011 ajr