THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :23962 of 2008 Date: 2.6.2010 Between: Smt. Surayaa Begum ..... PETITIONERS AND The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh rep. By The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,A.P., Hyderabad And others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : M.A. Mujeeb Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : G.P. for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 23962 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of an Auto bearing No.AP 28 U 2912, which was confiscated as it was used in the commission of an excise offence. The confiscation order was passed on 21.4.2004 and the same was alleged to have become final. During the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the Auto was released to the petitioner subject to her furnishing security in T.D./Vikas Cash Certificates on 28.2.2001 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- . According to the petitioner, the Auto was seized on 21.4.2004 following the confiscation order. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent is silent on this aspect. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed an application on 21.8.2007 before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for refund of Security Deposit receipt. The said application was rejected by the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that mere acquittal in the Criminal Case does not entitle the petitioner for refund of the Security Deposit. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the fact that the seized Auto is liable for sale, however, submitted that when once the auto is seized in pursuance of confiscation order, the respondents are not entitled to retain the above mentioned Certificates. In the absence of specific information furnished by the respondents as to whether the Auto has been seized following the confiscation order, it is not possible for this Court to render a specific finding thereon. However, if the auto has already been seized, the respondents are not entitled to retain the security furnished by the petitioner in the form of T.D./Vikas Certificates. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1. The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad shall re-examine the application of the petitioner. If the Auto has already been seized in pursuance of the confiscation order and is presently not in possession of the petitioner, the security furnished by the petitioner in the form of T.D/Vikas Cash Certificates shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. If, on the other hand, the Auto continues to be in the custody of the petitioner and if the petitioner does not surrender the auto within a period of four weeks, the respondents are entitled to encash the T.D/Vikas Cash Certificates furnished by the petitioner. An appropriate order, in this regard shall be passed by the Commissioner and communicated to the petitioner within the above stipulated time. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd June, 2010 pnb