HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4648 of 2011 Date: February 28, 2011 Between: Y. Prabhakar, S/o.Subbaramaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ:owner- Cum- Driver,R/o.Kummaravandla- Palli village, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapur District … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Kadiri Rural P.S., Ananthapur District and another … Respondents Order: Petitioner is the owner of vehicle, an auto - Tata Ace - bearing Temporary Registration No.AP-21TLTR-3703. By this writ petition, he questions order dated 12-07-2010 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, Anantapur District vide proceedings Rc.No.224/2010/B2. It appears, on 31-03-2010, on the ground that one of the passengers traveling in the auto of the petitioner was in possession of 134 bottles of liquor (180 ml. each) and transportation of the said liquor was undertaken by the petitioner without valid permit, a case in Cr.No.30/2010 was registered on the file of Kadiri Rural Police Station and the auto was seized. When the petitioner filed representation for release of the vehicle, the second respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to furnish fixed deposit receipt for the amount equivalent to the present value of the auto as assessed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kadiri, i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the said bottles of liquor were within the possession of one of the passengers in the auto and the same is not in his knowledge. It is stated that the said transportation was not undertaken by the petitioner and as he is unaware of one of the passengers possessing liquor bottles, there is no basis for seizing his auto. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of the second respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the auto of the petitioner was seized as way back as on 31-03-2010, so far, no proceedings are initiated for confiscation by issuing show-cause notice. When the matter came up on 25-02-2011, it was adjourned so as to enable learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions if any proceedings for confiscation are initiated consequent to seizure of the auto. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader that so far no show-cause notice is issued and respondents are contemplating to initiate proceedings by issuing show-cause notice for confiscation. It is further submitted that as much as the transportation of the liquor in the vehicle of the petitioner was without permit, the vehicle is liable for confiscation. In this case, it is to be noticed that though the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 31-03-2010 and nearly 11 months have elapsed thereafter, so far, no proceedings are initiated for confiscation of the vehicle. There appears no reason for not initiating proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle for such a long time. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle which was seized is a new one; he obtained loan from financial institutions for purchasing it and he has to repay the loan in monthly instalments and in view of the fact that the vehicle is lying with the respondents from almost an year, he is facing financial difficulties. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Temporary Registration No.AP- 21TLTR-3703 on his producing fixed deposit receipt for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for a period of one year in favour of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur. On such production of fixed deposit receipt for the sum specified above, respondents shall release the vehicle of the petitioner without any delay. The sum to be deposited by the petitioner by way of fixed deposit shall be subject to final orders to be passed by the competent authority. I am sure that the competent authority, while passing final orders, will take into account the plea of the petitioner that he was not in the knowledge of transportation of liquor bottles by one of the passengers. Order of the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, Anantapur District vide proceedings Rc.No.224/2010/B2, stands modified to the aforesaid effect. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J February 28, 2011 MRR