HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32610 of 2010 Date: 12.12.2011 Between: K.Krishnaveni ..... Petitioner And: The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and two others. …. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.L.N.Swamy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order vide C.R.No.14350/2009/CPE/D4, dated 28.01.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby he has confirmed order vide Rc.No.466/09/A4, dated 12.10.2009, of respondent No.2 The vehicle bearing registration No.AP 39 AK 9489 belonging to the petitioner was seized as the same was allegedly used for transportation of 150 litres of I.D. liquor. A case under Section 7(a) read with Section 8(c) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, was registered. Confiscation proceedings were initiated which ended in confiscation of the seized vehicle by respondent No.2 vide his order, dated 12.10.2009. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order before respondent No.1 was dismissed on 28.01.2010. Assailing the said two orders, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6635 of 2010. This Court by order, dated 25.03.2010, directed the respondents to release the confiscated vehicle on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- and filing an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be alienated in favour of others and the same shall be produced before the authorities concerned as and when required. It has come to light that the petitioner failed to comply with the condition contained in the said order. However, he has filed the present Writ Petition for the same relief as claimed in the previous Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, the fresh cause of action for filing this Writ Petition is his acquittal in Criminal case by judgment, dated 22.09.2010. In my opinion, the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. As the order of confiscation, as confirmed in appeal, was already subject matter of a previous Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.6635 of 2010, another Writ Petition for the same relief, albeit on the ground of subsequent event cannot be entertained. At best, the petitioner can raise the additional ground in the pending Writ Petition placing reliance on the judgment of the criminal Court. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue W.P.No.6635 of 2010. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 24.12.2010, is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.41444 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th December 2011 DR