IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13111 of 2009 Between: S.MADHU S/o Baba Sab 3-223/36-A Indira Nagar Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Kadapa,Kadapa District 2 The Sub -Inspector of Police Peddapuram P.S Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 06.06.2009 passed by respondent No.1 to the extent of stipulating the condition of producing Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs.1,33,500/- for release of Tata Sumo Vehicle belonging to the petitioner. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for the respondents. Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing registration No.AP9 X 6305 belonging to the petitioner was found being used for transporting 288 Nips of Rhizome’s Gold Blended whisky at J.Kothapalli Village, Peddamudiam Mandal, Kadapa District on 21.04.2009. The proceedings under Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 were initiated. The petitioner made an application before respondent No.1 for release of the vehicle. Respondent No.1 called for a report from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddamudiam, who categorically stated therein that the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, is no way concerned with the excise offence and that he arrested the accused, namely, Gangula Surya Narayana Reddy, Son of Narsi Reddy, involved in the offence. He further stated that without the knowledge of the petitioner, the accused was transporting the liquor. Though the said report was referred to by respondent No.1 in his order, dated 06.06.2009, respondent No.1 stipulated the condition that the petitioner shall produce the FDR for Rs.1,33,500/-. Though the order passed by respondent No.1 shows that the Advocate appearing for the petitioner expressed his readiness to furnish the FDR, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, submitted that the petitioner is a very poor person, who is eking out his livelihood only on running of the vehicle and he has no capacity to deposit such a high amount of Rs.1,33,500/-. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is not involved in the offence as reported by respondent No.2, I deem it appropriate to modify the condition stipulated by respondent No.1 by substituting the same with the condition that the petitioner shall furnish third party security instead of FDR for Rs.1,33,500/-. In addition to the same, the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to respondent No.1 that he shall not sell or in any manner encumber the vehicle till completion of the confiscation proceedings. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.16982 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 3rd JULY, 2009. kvni