The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.29073 of 2009 Dated 24th August, 2010 Between: The Toddy Tapers Cooperative Society, Malkapur Village …Petitioner And The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Sangareddy, Medak District and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.M.Damodar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Prohibition & Excise The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seizing six vehicles as described in the prayer portion of the Writ Petition, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner- Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release their vehicles, seized in connection with Crime No.283 of 2009-10, along with toddy in terms of Rule 48 (2) of the A.P.Excise (Grant of License to Sell Toddy Conditions of License and Tapping of Excise Trees) Rules, 2007 (for short ‘the Rules’). I have heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise representing the respondents. The petitioner holds licenses for running both depot and sale of toddy. On 22-12-2009, the petitioner’s toddy depot was inspected by the Excise Officials, six vehicles were seized along with the toddy and Crime No.283/09-10 was registered against it. As the petitioner’s request for release of the seized vehicles and the toddy was not heeded to, it has filed the present Writ Petition. This Court by interim order, dated 31-12-2009, while ordering ‘Notice Before Admission’, directed the respondents to release the six vehicles in favour of the petitioner on condition of its depositing the value of the seized stock as assessed by respondent No.1. On a vacate stay application filed by the respondents, the said order was modified by this Court on 02-02-2010 to the effect that apart from depositing the value of the stock seized, the petitioner shall furnish third party security to a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and file individual affidavits and undertakings before respondent No.3 to the effect that the vehicles shall be produced as and when required. In terms of the said order, the seized vehicles were released on the petitioner complying with the conditions contained therein. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the passing of the above- mentioned order, the second sample was sent for chemical analysis at the petitioner’s request and that it was found that it was free from chloral hydrate or any other foreign substance. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the very seizure itself was illegal and the petitioner as such is entitled for unconditional release of its vehicles. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, however, submitted that though the chemical analysis report of second sample opined that the toddy was free from adulteration with chloral hydrate or other similar substance, it was found that the same contained volatile ascetic acid and that the toddy was accordingly adulterated. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further stated that since the criminal case is pending, the validity of seizure of the vehicles is dependent upon its outcome. Inasmuch as the vehicles were already released on the directions of this Court, and the criminal case is pending, no further adjudication of the issue raised in this Writ Petition can be undertaken by this Court at this stage. The petitioner is entitled to defend itself in the pending Criminal Case. It is however made clear that the release of the vehicles in pursuance of the directions of this Court shall be subject to the outcome of the pending criminal proceedings. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.37702 of 2009 and WVMP.No.132 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 24th August, 2010 lur