IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9352 of 2009 Between: D.Gopaiah S/o.Nagaiah R/o.Venkatagiri village,Khammam RUral Mandal Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Proh & Excise.,Nampally Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Proh & Excise, Khammam,Khammam District 3 The Station House officer, Khammam Rural P.S., Khammam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not passing any orders on the application for granting interim custody of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 20 X 4376 filed along with the appeal on 18.4.2009 seeking to set aside the confiscation orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.1181/2008/P&E/B3 dated 3.2.009 as illegal, and arbitrary,and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that on 20.12.2008, while he was going on his Hero Honda Passion Plus Two Wheeler Plus bearing Reg. No.AP20 X 4376, near Venkatagiri, the 3rd respondent stopped and checked his vehicle, and seized it on the ground that he was transporting 3 ½ litres of I.D. liquor and registered a case against him in Cr.No.349 / 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with 8(b)(c) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. The petitioner states that he was not transporting I.D. liquor. However, the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice passed an order dated 3.2.2009 confiscating the petitioner’s vehicle. Challenging the order of confiscation, he filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 18.4.2009 along with an application for grant of interim custody of the vehicle. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent, has neither released his vehicle nor passed any orders on the application seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the petitioner along with the application seeking grant of interim custody of his vehicle, is pending consideration before the appellate authority, and since it is the case of the petitioner that if the vehicle is not released in his favour, there is likelihood of the vehicle getting damaged by reason of exposure to sun and rain, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The 1st respondent-Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, and if he finds it difficult to dispose it of the appeal, he shall consider the application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal, seeking grant of interim custody of the vehicle, and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, in accordance with law.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th April, 2009 bcj