IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2079 of 2001 Between: Gunta Srinivasulu, S/o. Shri G.Krishnaiah, R/o. Kothakota Village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad Division, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer of Prohibition And Excise, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in directing to confiscate the vehicle bearing No.AP-22B-2022 by an order dated 10-11- 2000 by confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 13-7-99 in CR.No.507/DPE/2000/B2 dated 10-11-2000 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,21 and 19(1) (g) of Constitution of India and further set aside the same as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2079 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad-1st respondent in Proceedings C.R.No.507/DPE/2002/B2, dated 10-11-2000, in upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad-2nd respondent in proceedings Cr.No.B3/5534/98, dated 13-07-1999, in confiscating Matador Van of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the Matador Van bearing No.AP-22-B-2022 and he is running the said vehicle on rent basis by letting it out to people on rent. It is stated that on 29-10-1998 he let out the said vehicle to his relative Mr.Nagisetty for his personal work. Since the said Nagisetty did not return the vehicle, he went to his house on 30-10-1998 to enquire as to why his vehicle was not returned. As soon as he reached Nagisetty’s house, police took him into custody on the ground that he is the owner of the vehicle in question, which is involved in illegal transportation of liquor. It is stated that though he was arrested at the house of Nagisetty, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District, set up a false case as if he was found in the said vehicle and registered a case against him in crime P.R.No.131/98-99, dated 30-10-1998, for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. While the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated, for which, the petitioner filed an explanation on 08-04-1999 stating that he was not travelling in the said vehicle at the time of seizure of the vehicle but later, when he went to the house of Nagisetty to enquire as to why his vehicle was not returned, police took him into custody though, he did not commit any offence. It is stated that on 29-10-1998 he has given the vehicle to Nagisetty for his personal work and he has no knowledge about the commission of offence. A perusal of the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 13-07-1999, goes to show that though he stated in the order about submission of the explanation of the petitioner through reference third cited, in fact, the date of explanation and reference of explanation was not at all referred in the portion of the reference. As per panchanama, it was revealed that the petitioner and others were travelling in the vehicle, while two other persons were absconding, but, however, without recording any clear finding as to whether the petitioner is found travelling in the said vehicle and whether the petitioner is having knowledge about the commission of offence, the confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the 2nd respondent through order, dated 13-07-1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent did not consider at all with regard to the contentions relating to his innocence and non-involvement in the commission of offence but, dismissed the appeal on the ground that he is vicariously liable for the illegal activity, in which, his vehicle was involved. Insofar as vicarious liability is concerned, whether the vehicle is liable to be confiscated, even without the consent or knowledge of the owner, is a matter yet to be decided by this court in W.P.No.20296 of 2000, which was referred to a Larger Bench by order, dated 14-07-2007. However, if there is a clear evidence that the owner is having knowledge about the commission of offence and he himself involved in the offence, then the vehicle is liable for confiscation without any doubt whatsoever. But, however, in the instant case, no finding has been recorded by the appellate authority as to whether the petitioner is having knowledge about the commission of offence and whether the petitioner is found travelling in the said vehicle and these are the matters to be considered by the 1st respondent. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the court below for fresh consideration. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to consider afresh and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after dealing with all the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and after giving reasonable opportunity to all the concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 30-06-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{PRASAD}