L Ramesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1706 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
                Writ Petition No.6535 of 2021


JUDGMENT:

This writ petition has been filed against the action of

the 3rd respondent in not considering the appeal

dated 04.1.2021, which was filed by the petitioner against the

order of the 2nd respondent in confiscating the petitioner's

Mahindra Imperio Truck Vehicle bearing No.AP 39 TJ 2417

and not releasing the same in connection with Crime No.37 of

2020 registered by the Station House Officer, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Kanigiri, Prakasam District as illegal,

arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and

consequently seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to

release the vehicle forthwith in the interest of justice.

2. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition

and Excise appearing for the respondents. Perused the

material available on record. With the consent of both the

parties, this writ petition is being disposed at the stage of

admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Imperio Truck Vehicle

bearing No. AP 39 TJ 2417 and it is used as public transport

vehicle for his livelihood. On 08.8.2020 one Bogireddy

Chandra and Mandapalli Nageswarao hired the petitioner's

vehicle for the purpose of marriage in their house. On

09.8.2020, the 4th respondent seized the petitioner's vehicle

alleging that it is involved in illegal transportation of liquor

bottles without valid permission and registered a case in

Crime No.37 of 2020 under Section 34 (a) of the A.P. Excise

(Amendment) Act, 2020.

4. Consequent to the seizure, the 4th respondent produced

the vehicle before the 2nd respondent, who is the competent

authority to confiscate the seized vehicle. The 2nd respondent

issued show cause notice dated 31.08.2020 calling upon the

explanation of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of

receipt of the said show cause notice.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner is an illiterate person and that he is not having

knowledge about the proceedings under the Excise Act and as

such, he could not submit explanation within the stipulated

time. It appears that the 2nd respondent ordered to confiscate

the seized vehicle vide proceedings in

Rc.No.KNG-CO(10)/2020/A1, dated 16.11.2020. Subsequent

to the confiscation orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent on

04.01.2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that till now no

orders are passed in his appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from

the date of seizure, the vehicle is kept in the police station

and the said vehicle is being spoiled if it is kept idle for long

period. The petitioner's livelihood is also seriously affected

due to the reason that he is not in a position to ply the vehicle

on hire for his livelihood as the same is under the custody of

the 4th respondent.

7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader

submits that the vehicle was seized for transporting huge

quantity of liquor bottles by surprise check conducted by the

4th respondent along with his staff. The 2nd respondent

passed confiscation orders duly following the procedure

provided under law by giving reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner by way of submitting explanation to the show cause

notice issued by him. But, the petitioner failed to submit the

explanation within the stipulated time. Accordingly, the

2nd respondent passed orders confiscating the seized vehicle.

8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that due

to the reason that number of cases are pending before the

appellate authority, the appellate authority is disposing the

matters on first come first serve basis and the case of the

petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.

9. Having heard the submissions of both the learned

counsels and upon perusing the material available on record,

in the opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met if

the appellate authority i.e., the 3rd respondent is directed to

dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably

within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order in view of the fact that the vehicle was

seized seven (7) months back and it is kept idle in the police

station and as such there is every likelihood of vehicle being

spoiled. Pending disposal of the appeal, the 3rd respondent

shall consider and pass orders to release the vehicle of the

petitioner by accepting collateral security/immovable property

security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner.

The petitioner shall submit an affidavit before the

3rd respondent stating that he will not alienate the vehicle to

any 3rd party or change its physical features pending disposal

of the appeal and that the said vehicle shall be produced

before the Excise authorities as and when it is required,

pending disposal of the appeal.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed

of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J

Date: 23.3.2021

Note:

Furnish C.C. in two days.

B/o GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

Writ Petition No.6535 of 2021

Date: 23.3.2021

GR