THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8537 OF 2010 Dated 11th June, 2010 Between: Smt. Dodda Manju …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : V.Brahmaiah Chowdary Counsel for 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.8537 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not refunding the F.D.R. amount of Rs.45,000/- lying with respondent No.6 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the owner of an auto bearing No. AP 24 V 3962. Respondent No.5 seized the said auto on the allegation that the same was used for transporting 35 litres of I.D. liquor. During the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, the petitioner furnished guarantee by way of F.D.R. for Rs.45,000/- which was ascertained as the value of the auto and the auto was released to him against the F.D.R. Eventually, the auto was confiscated and was sold in auction held on 1.1.2010. The petitioner made an application on 19.1.2010 for refund of F.D.R. amount of Rs. 45,000/- . As the said application has not been disposed of, he filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise placed before the Court, the letter addressed by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Vijayawada, wherein it is stated that from out of the sum of Rs.45,000/-, a demand draft for Rs.31,700/- has been issued in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, and that the remaining amount along with interest pertaining to the F.D.R. was already paid to the petitioner. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on proceedings dated 18.1.2010 of Respondent No.4 and stated that the petitioner’s auto fetched an amount of Rs.13,300/- in auction and that the said amount along with interest on F.D.R. was already received by the petitioner. In my opinion, while the respondents are entitled to appropriate the sum of Rs. 45,000/-, which was determined as the value of the auto at the time of its release to the petitioner, pending the confiscation proceedings, whatever amount that was fetched in the auction of auto along with interest on F.D.R. is liable to be returned to the petitioner. This is what the respondents appeared to have done as evident from the above mentioned letter of the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jaggaiahpeta, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,Vijayawada. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11th June, 2010 pnb