IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24044 of 2008 Between: Y. Swamy, S/o. Sri Ramaiah, R/o. Mustafa Nagar, Khammam Town, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, Warnagal. 3 The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Khammam, Khammam 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 declaring the action of respondents in seizing the vehicle bearing No. AP-20V- 1271 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to release the vehicle bearing No. AP-20V - 1271 on furnishing 3rd party security, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24044 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in seizing the vehicle bearing No. AP 20 V-1271 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to release the said vehicle. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the impugned seizure, the conﬁscation proceedings are pending before the second respondent. In the circumstances, it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion on merits. However, so far as the release of the vehicle is concerned, since the same was seized long back in the month of August and the petitioner is willing to furnish the bank guarantee, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee to the value of the vehicle in question to the satisfaction of the second respondent on whose file the proceedings are pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 04-11-2008 KLP