THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.28416 of 2011 Dated 24th October, 2011 Between: B.Gopal Naik …Petitioner And The Deputy Commissioner, Proh.& Excise, Chittoor District, and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Counsel for respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order in Rc.No.125/2011/A1, dated 29.08.2011, of respondent No.1, whereby he has directed the petitioner to produce cash deposit receipt for Rs.1,25,000/- for releasing the seized auto. I have heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing for the respondents. The petitioner’s auto was seized on the allegation that it was found carrying 70 litres of ID arrack. When the petitioner applied for release of the seized auto, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the condition of making a cash deposit is too onerous, which he, who is a poor auto owner, cannot afford to comply with. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question whether the petitioner’s auto was involved in transporting the ID liquor or not needs to be decided in the pending enquiry by respondent No.2. Since the auto was seized on the said allegation, imposition of condition of making cash deposit for release of the seized auto cannot be found fault with. However, considering the fact of low quantity of arrack and the incapacity of the petitioner to make the cash deposit, it is felt appropriate that in the interests of justice, the condition imposed by respondent No.2 in the impugned order is modified. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make a cash deposit for Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) instead of Rs.1,25,000/-. On proof of the deposit and subject to other conditions stipulated in the impugned order, respondent No.2 is directed to release the seized auto, which shall be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings pending before him. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35091 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th October, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB