AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Battu Devanand, J
1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and perused the material available on record.
2) The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle i.e., Maruthi Suzuki Four wheel auto registered bearing No.AP 39 TN 9859. The petitioner is eking out his livelihood by running the said auto. On 03.02.2021, while he is returning from Hyderabad to Kolakalapudi, the said vehicle was seized at border check post, Pondugula Village, Dachepalli Mandal by the 4th respondent alleging that 816 liquor bottles were transporting from the State of Telangana to Andhra Pradesh in the said vehicle. On the same day, 4th respondent registered a case in Cr.No.53 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(A)(1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent falsely foisted the case against the petitioner and seized his vehicle. Though there is no connection with the crime, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.04.2021 to the 3rd respondent requesting for interim custody of the seized vehicle. But without considering the said representation, the 3rd respondent passed impugned order in C.No.4853/SEB/GNT®/2020 dated 31.08.2021.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confiscation order dated 31.08.2021 is not communicated to the petitioner. Only on 30.09.2021, when the petitioner visited the office of the 3rd respondent to enquire about the status of his representation dated 09.04.2021, he same to know about passing the confiscation order dated 31.08.2021.
5) Learned counsel would submit that there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing the confiscation order without considering the representation of the petitioner.
6) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that a show cause notice was issued by the 3rd respondent on 19.04.2021 and the same was served to the petitioner on 03.08.2021. After that on 31.08.2021, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order. The remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the Appellate authority against the order passed by the confiscating authority.
7) Learned Government Pleader submits that this Writ Petition is not maintainable as and when alternative remedy is available.
8) Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner submitted an application dated 09.04.2021 to the respondent No.3 seeking interim custody of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings. It appears no orders are passed on the said application by the 3rd respondent. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that show cause notice dated 19.04.2021 was served on the petitioner on 03.08.2021 and financer of the vehicle on 25.07.2021. This Court unable to understand why the respondents failed to serve the show cause notice dated 19.04.2021 till 03.08.2021 for a period of four months. But the impugned order is passed immediately after completion of 15 days stipulated in the show cause notice mentioning that the petitioner did not submit his explanation.
9) In view of the above, we are unable to accept the reason given by the 3rd respondent while passing confiscation order. However, considering the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the order impugned in this Writ Petition is an appealable order. In our view, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing Appeal against the confiscation order.
10) Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions...
i) The petitioner is directed to file an Appeal before the Appellate authority within three (3) days from today along with an application seeking interim custody of the vehicle during pendency of the Appeal.
ii) On submission of the said Appeal and interim custody application, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders in an application filed seeking interim custody of the vehicle within seven (7) days thereafter taking into consideration of the orders being passed by this Court in releasing vehicles for interim custody pending the confiscation and appellate proceedings.
iii) It is for the 2nd respondent to impose necessary conditions to protect the interest of the respondents.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.