THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2626 of 2007 Dated 25th August, 2010 Between: Patnam Maheshwar. …Petitioner And The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Medak District and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D. Krishna for Sri T. Amarnath Goud Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by respondent No.2 as confirmed in the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by respondent No.3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. On 05.05.2005 at 8.15 a.m., the goods carriage vehicle bearing No.AP10 T 9292 of Tata make belonging to the petitioner was intercepted by the Prohibition and Excise officials of Medak Station at a place called Mangalparthy on the road between Mangalparthy to Narsapur near Mangalparthy tope. The said vehicle was found carrying three syntex drums each containing 200 litres toddy. The driver of the vehicle was arrested and the vehicle was seized. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 17.05.2005 for confiscation of the seized vehicle. After considering the explanation dated 21.06.2005 submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 passed his order confiscating the vehicle. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 who after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, upheld the order of respondent No.2. A perusal of the orders passed by both respondent Nos.2 and 3 shows that the vehicle was seized as no transport permit was produced. Both the respondents placed reliance on Section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’) under which confiscation of the intoxicants along with material utensils and vehicles etc. is permissible. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle who has given the same on hire to a toddy licencee and that no transport permit is required for transporting toddy from the depot to tope. From the material available on record, I do not find any documents filed by the petitioner showing that the person to whom he has hired the vehicle was a licencee of the toddy. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to point out any statutory provision in support of his submission that no permit is required for transporting toddy from the depot to tope. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise placed reliance on Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Transportation of Maximum Quantity of Intoxicants) Rules 1972, which prescribed maximum quantity of intoxicants to be transported without permit. Under the said Rule, toddy to an extent of 10 bulk litres could be transported without a transport permit. Rule 4 thereof envisages grant of permit to a person desiring to transport intoxicants. In my opinion, as the petitioner failed to show that the person to whom he has hired the vehicle holds valid transport permit for transporting the toddy of 600 litres, the vehicle which was involved in illegal transportation of toddy is liable for confiscation under Section 45 of the Act. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.72,500/- towards the value of the vehicle as a condition for its release. In view of this fact, the respondents are permitted to encash the bank guarantee if the same remains valid. If the bank guarantee is not valid at present, the respondents shall be free to seize the vehicle and recover the value thereof through its sale. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order dated 13.03.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.3376 of 2007 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.3376 of 2007 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th August, 2010 GHN