HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6637 of 2010 DATE:25.03.2010 Between: Vadi Janaki Ramaiah … Petitioner and The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, A.P., Hyderabad, and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6637 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of a Car bearing No.TN 20 AJ 009 and a resident of South-East extension apartment of Green Meadows, Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore. The officials of the Excise Department intercepted a vehicle owned by one Avulapati Srinivasulu on 05.10.2009. Apart from recovering certain contraband material from him, they received information that the contraband material is available with the petitioner also. On that basis, they proceeded to the residence of the petitioner. It is stated that the inspection revealed that the contraband material was found in the residence as well as the car of the petitioner. A mediators’ report was drawn on 05.10.2009 and proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nellore, 2nd respondent. Through his order, dated 27.01.2010, the 2nd respondent ordered confiscation of the car and the contraband material seized from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad, 1st respondent. The petitioner also filed an application before the 1st respondent for interim custody of the vehicle, and the same was rejected by the 1st respondent, through his order, dated 04.03.2010. Hence, the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, several contentions were advanced, such as, no material was seized from the car and the 2nd respondent did not conduct any trial much less discussing the evidence that links the alleged crime with the car and refrigerator of the petitioner. It is true that the order of the 2nd respondent is silent on these aspects. All the same, now that the matter is pending in an appeal before the 1st respondent, these and other aspects can be considered, at the time of hearing the appeal. This Court finds it difficult to order interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 27.01.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th March, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6637 of 2010 (Dismissed) 25th March, 2010 CBS