THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 16529 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.35/2021/CPE/Ex/D1, dt.25.06.2021, affirming the order of confiscation passed by the 3rd respondent, dt.17.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise appearing for respondents and perused the record.
3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner of Honda Grazia Motor Cycle bearing No.TS 22 D 7017, and the said vehicle was initially seized by the 4th respondent on registering a case for illegal transportation of ID liquor. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings confiscating the subject vehicle for being involved in commission of offence under Section 7(a) read with 8€ of the T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, petitioner had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent with a delay of 319 days.
2
5. The 2nd respondent by taking the said appeal of the petitioner on record and affording an opportunity of hearing, while noting that the subject vehicle was being used for transporting ID liquor, which is prohibited in the State of Telangana, thereby affecting State revenue and public health & safety, held that there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the writ averments, would submit that the petitioner had purchased the subject vehicle on equated monthly installments and would suffer loss financially for non-usage of the subject vehicle, and prayed to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order of 2nd respondent affirming the confiscation order passed by the 3rd respondent.
8 On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise appearing for respondents supported the order passed by the 2nd respondent and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. I have noted the above submissions of the respective counsel.
3
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was found transporting 10 liters of ID liquor on the subject vehicle, whereupon the 4th respondent registered a case in COR.No.333 of 2019, dt.17.11.2019, under Section 7(a) read with 8€ of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995, and seized the subject vehicle.
11. This Court, on 03.03.2020 in WP.No.4699 of 2020, had granted interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing Rs.40,000/- security and also on producing original RC.
12. It is only after the confiscation order was passed, the subject vehicle was repossessed by the respondents and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 22.07.2021, the same was not subjected to auction. Thus, the petitioner is not in possession of the subject vehicle since passing of the confiscation order, dt.05.01.2021.
13. A Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Traders (Kirana and General Merchants), Dhermapuri, Karimnagar District v. District Collector, Karimnagar and others1, having regard to Article 47 of the Constitution of India, had taken a view that it is incumbent on the part of the State to ensure and improve the health of its 1 2002(1) ALD 210 = 2002(1) ALT 611 4 citizens, and allowing persons to manufacture ID liquor results in affecting the health of the people and therefore such activities cannot be permitted. It had also held that if the authorities take further action, by following due process of law, no fault can be found.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner was put on notice upon seizure of the vehicle and before passing of the confiscation order, and even at the appellate stage also, and that the petitioner had been granted opportunity of hearing, there is sufficient compliance of Section 46A of the Excise Act as well as the principles of natural justice before passing of the confiscation order, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in The Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Warangal & two others v. T.Ravinder Reddy2.
15. Therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the 2nd respondent in affirming the order of the 3rd respondent in confiscating the subject vehicle requiring interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition is devoid of merits. 2 Judgment dt.04.02.2022 in WA.No.204 of 2004. 5
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 01st August, 2022.
gra