HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21206 OF 2008 DATED 18th December, 2014. BETWEEN Gajella Venkatarami Reddy ….Petitioner And The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, AP, Hyderabad and ors. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21206 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The petitioner is the owner of jeep bearing registration No.AP.04.B.703. On 22.08.1998 while he was coming back from Bangalore, the respondent was conducting route watch at Gurjala to Simhadripuram Road. At that point of time, he intercepted the vehicle of the petitioner and found 35 cartoons of non-duty paid liquor and 31 Redsun whisky bottles in the said jeep. Pursuant to the same, the second respondent filed C.C.No. 577 of 200, however, the petitioner was acquitted in the said case. The said jeep was confiscated by order dated 06.10.2007. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent with a delay of 96 days. The said appeal was dismissed by the first respondent by order dated 03.04.2008 holding that since the appeal was filed beyond the time, the same was liable to be dismissed. Section 13-C of the A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 reads as under: “13-C.Appeal: Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 13 may, within sixty days from the date of passing such order, appeal to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, who may after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant pass such orders as he deems fit.” The aforesaid provision do not provide for condonation of delay by the appellate authority and in the absence of enabling provision for condonation of delay, the appellate authority cannot exercise power to condone the delay and therefore the first respondent-appellate authority rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner . No error of jurisdiction committed by the first respondent while passing the impugned order dated 03.04.2008. In view thereof, the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the first respondent is hereby upheld and consequently the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs. --------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 18th December, 2014. Msnrx