IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10393 of 2004 Between: Mr. M.V.V. Guptha … Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Dept., of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sricharan Telaprolu for Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10393 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash orders dated 31.12.2002 and 16.02.2004 of respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively. The petitioner is the owner of an Ambassador car bearing No.DLY 162. On 17.09.2002, the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Krishna District has seized the said car while conducting a route watch at tunnel bridge. On checking of the car, it was found that 400 Kgs of black jaggery was being transported, which was seized along with the car and crime No.223 of 2002-03 was registered for the offence under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”). On receipt of the show cause notice from respondent No.3, the petitioner filed his explanation, wherein he has stated that the said jaggery was being transported under a valid waybill bearing No.4385098 dated 17.09.2002 and that the transportation of jaggery is not prohibited under any law. Respondent No.3 has, however, ordered confiscation of the vehicle along with the jaggery vide his order dated 31.12.2002 and the said order was confirmed in appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 vide his order dated 16.02.2004. The petitioner assailed both these orders in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by respondent No.3 and confirmed in appeal by respondent No.2 are patently illegal. The learned counsel further submitted that transportation of black jaggery by itself does not constitute an offence and that respondent No.3 has not given any finding that the seized jaggery was intended for manufacture of I.D. liquor. The learned counsel further submitted that during the enquiry the petitioner has produced the original waybill under which the jaggery was being transported and therefore respondent Nos.2 and 3 committed a grievous error in treating transportation of black jaggery as illegal. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise fairly submitted with reference to the material on record that during the enquiry, the petitioner has submitted the original waybill. A perusal of order dated 31.12.2002 passed by respondent No.3 shows that the confiscation was ordered on the finding that it was clearly established that the car was involved in transportation of 400 Kgs of black jaggery. Respondent No.3 has stated in the said order that such transportation is prohibited under the Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Traders (Kiranaand General Marchants) vs. District Collector, Karimnagar[1] held that the activity of dealing in black jaggery including its transportation by itself does not constitute an offence, unless a nexus is established between such activity and manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor. No where in his order respondent No.3 has made any whisper to the effect that the confiscated black jaggery was intended to be used for manufacture of I.D. liquor. The very premise on which he confiscated the black jaggery, namely; that its transportation is prohibited is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforementioned judgment. Even respondent No.2 in his order has not dealt with this aspect from proper perspective and has merely confirmed the order of respondent No.3. In my opinion, both these orders cannot be sustained either in law or on facts and they are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.13198 of 2004 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.07.2010. ES [1] 2002 (1) ALT 611