HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31593 of 2010 Date: 20th December 2010 Between : S. Shankarappa. …….Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise & others. …..….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31593 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the Memo, dated 09.02.2010, issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, in Rc.No.456/2009/A-1. The petitioner is the owner of an Auto bearing No.AP-03-X- 3710, which is seized in connection with Crime No.315/2009-2010 of Excise Station, Madanapalli. The allegation against the petitioner is that the aforesaid Auto of the petitioner is being used for transportation of 220 litres of illicit liquor. It is stated that the confiscation proceedings are pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. During the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 13th of October 2009, upon which, the impugned Memo was issued on 9th of February 2010, instructing the petitioner to furnish a fixed deposit receipt for Rs.75,000/- in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, for release of the Auto, pending confiscation proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that even the value of the Auto is not Rs.75,000/-, and that such a condition is imposed onerously. It is submitted that the Auto was not used for transportation of illicit liquor, as alleged. In view of pendency of confiscation proceedings, it is not desirable for this Court, to record any finding on the question whether the petitioner’s vehicle is being used for transportation of arrack, as alleged. Though a submission is made by the learned counsel for petitioner to order for release of vehicle on furnishing the third-party security, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission, in view of pendency of confiscation proceedings. However, as it is stated that the petitioner is not able to furnish the fixed deposit receipt, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s vehicle, if he furnishes a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.75,000/-, as fixed in the Memo, dated 9th February 2010. It is also to be noticed that the seizure was effected on 13th of September 2009 and confiscation proceedings are still pending, therefore, I deem it appropriate to further direct the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, to pass appropriate final orders in the confiscation proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to file his explanation in the confiscation proceedings. The bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner, shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in confiscation proceedings. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th December 2010 N.B: Furnish C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr