THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1049 of 2003 Date of Judgment: 29-11-2010 Between: 1. G.Uma Devi and others ..Appellants And 1. The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary of the Heal, Medical & Family Welfare, E-1, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Judgment: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD W.A.No.1049 of 2003 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.21370 of 1997, dated 01-08-2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner permitting the respondents to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the writ petitioner. The facts in nutshell are that: Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Singarayakonda registered a case against the writ petitioner for illegal transportation of ID liquor followed by show cause notice to the writ petitioner why the vehicle should not be confiscated. On writ petitioner submitting the explanation the vehicle was directed to be confiscated. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner, who confirmed the said order. When the confiscation proceedings are pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.15543 of 1995. This Court by order dated 19-07-1995 directed the respondents therein to release the vehicle in question on condition of petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Pursuant to the same the petitioner furnished bank guarantee and the vehicle was released. Against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15543 of 1995 no appeal has been preferred and the same has become final. Even if the confiscation order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he cannot review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15543 of 1995, dated 19-07-1995 for release of the vehicle; and on petitioner submitting the bank guarantee, the same can be encashed in view of confiscation order. Therefore, the learned single judge while disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner questioning the confiscation permitted the respondents to encash the bank guarantee, since he cannot review the order of release of the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee. In view of the same, Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD,J. 29-11-2010 Murthy