HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22311 of 2008 Date : 14.09.2011 Between : Karidi Krishna Prasad. …..Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mulugu Station, Warangal District & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22311 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, questioning the order, dated 20th of May 2008, passed in C.O.R.No.595/2007-2008, by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, by which, he has ordered for confiscation of the car belonging to the petitioner i.e. Tata Indica cab car bearing No.AP-9Y-1317. On the information that some non-duty-paid liquor is being sold in Medaram Jatara, the Assistant Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise and Prohibition and Excise Inspectors of Special Medaram Jatara, were conducting patrolling in Reddygudem area. On the ground that the inspecting officials have found one person near Reddygudem bus stand conducting non-duty-paid Indian made liquor business, the entire material was seized. Alleging that the accused, on questioning, has confessed that he has purchased the non-duty-paid liquor in Yanam of Maharashtra State to sell in Medaram Jatara at higher rates, and thus, was indulging in clandestine business of selling non-duty-paid liquor, respondents have seized the available non-duty-paid liquor. On the ground that the said liquor was transported in Indica cab bearing No.AP-9Y-1317, the said vehicle was also seized. On the report submitted by the inspecting officers, confiscation proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 46 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On the ground that the petitioner has not responded to the show cause notice issued by the respondents to show cause as to why the vehicle of the petitioner should not be confiscated, and further alleging that the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, had the knowledge of using the said vehicle for transportation of non-duty-paid liquor, the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, has passed orders, dated 13.03.2008, in Cr.No.234/2008/PE/B4, confiscating the seized the contraband along with the vehicle belonging to the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was not at all used for transportation of any non-duty-paid liquor and admittedly, the contraband was seized near the bus stand, but not from the car. It is submitted that in the absence of using the vehicle for transportation of liquor, it could not have been ordered for confiscation illegally. It is submitted that after receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner was willing to file his explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the same, but at that point of time, as he was not keeping good health, reply could not be filed within 15 days and after expiry of 15 days, when he approached the 2nd respondent and offered to submit the explanation, he has refused to receive the same and without giving an opportunity for filing explanation, the order of confiscation is passed. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. When the matter came up on last occasion, the learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the file relating to seizure. Accordingly, the entire file was Xeroxed and is produced. I have also perused the seizure panchanama drawn on the date of inspection. From the seizure panchanama, it is clear that no non-duty-paid liquor was seized from the vehicle, but only on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transportation of non-duty-paid liquor, it was seized. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that though non-duty-paid liquor was not transported in the vehicle, without assigning valid reasons, the impugned order is passed, confiscating the vehicle. It is submitted that there is no evidence at all in proof of the allegation that the vehicle was being used for transportation of intoxicant from Yanam of Maharashtra to Medaram Jatara, and in that view of the matter, there is no basis either for seizure of the vehicle or for passing the order for confiscation. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the petitioner has not even responded to the show cause notice, and in that view of the matter, as the car owned by the petitioner was used for transportation of non-duty-paid liquor illegally, same is liable for confiscation under Sections 45 and 46 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. In this case, it is to be noticed that there is no direct evidence to show that the vehicle was used for transportation of non-duty-paid liquor. Though non-duty- paid liquor was seized, even as per the seizure panchanama, it was seized at the bus stand of Reddygudem village. In that view of the matter, in the absence of direct evidence, it is doubtful whether the vehicle was used for transportation of liquor or not. Be that as it may, as it is stated that the petitioner was not keeping good health when the show cause notice was served and also he made attempt to file explanation after expiry of 15 days period, respondents did not receive his explanation, I deem it is a fit case to give further opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, by setting aside the impugned order. It is also to be noticed that by way of interim order, this Court directed the respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner subject to the condition of furnishing bank guarantee as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector concerned. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the vehicle was released on furnishing bank guarantee as per the directions of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the order, dated 20th May 2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division. The petitioner is permitted to file his explanation to the show cause notice, within a period of eight weeks from today. If any such explanation is filed within the time referred above, the 2nd respondent is directed to receive the same and consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. The petitioner shall continue to renew the bank guarantee, which was furnished pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.11.2008, in W.P.M.P.No.29062 of 2008, and renew the same till appropriate final orders are passed by the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is allowed subject to the directions referred above. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th September 2011 ajr