The High Court · 2025

...RESPON DENTIT1FSPgNDFNT Petition under {iection '15'1 cpc praying that in the cinrl m:;tances stqled in the af.fidevit filed ir support of the petition, the High court m:ry tre pleased to vacate the i4terim orlers dt:02.11 2016 passed in Wp.NIp.No,16.lg1 of 201g in WP.No.374Q6 of 201 i and dismiss the writ petition Counsql for the Petitioner: SRl. V. RAMCHANDER GOUD Counsel for the Resp,ondent Nos. 1to3: Gp FOR PROHIBITION & E:XCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the 1,,:llowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.3748 6 of 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in passing order, vide proceedings No.4539/2016/CPErrS/D1 dt.11.08.2016, confirming the order passed by the 3'd respondent in Cr.No.Cl72l2OL6lDCM dt.04.07.2016, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and with a consequential direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle i.e, Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545; that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the aforesaid vehicle on daily hlre basis; that on the fateful day, he had given the aforesaid vehicle on daily hire basis to one Kavali Ramesh of the same village to drive the vehicle; that the aforesaid vehicle taken on daily hire basis was used for illegal transportation of liquor in the outskirts of Kollur Village; that the petitioner is not arraF{ as an accused in Crime No.102 of 2OtG dt.27.02.2016 2 registered in cc,lnection with the aforesaid illegal transportatio I of liquor; and that the-e I ; no mens rea on the part of the petitioner eith :r in giving his vehicle on 1i:ily hire basis or with regard to his invc,l\,en ent in the aforesaid crim( and thus, the vehicle which is confisratt:d by the respondents- a u I I o rities ought to have been released by thrr rr:spondents to the petitioler ,

4. Petitiole 'uther contends that except the fact that o re K.Ramesh, who is resident of Kollur Villave, wherein the petitioner res d:s, had taken the subject veh c le on daily hire basis from the petitioner, he is no way concerned v;itl- the alleged illegal transportation of lrquor either by K.Ramesh, cr tle person, who had engaged the services cf the said Ramesh for tra riporting liquor without having any valid Jrer nission or licence from thr concerned authority, contravening the pro,risitns of the Andhra Pradr:sh [-xcise Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'), th€r(rl]y rendering the contraband .{). Iiquor bottles illegally being transported a or g with the subject vehic e t e,longing to the petitioner liable for confiscati,)n.

5. It is; alsr contended by the petitioner that the 3'r respondent without consider ing his request for release of the vehicle, harl e rroneously passed the conf scation order which has further been afflrrnr:d by the 2nd respondent uritl- tut considering the non-involvement of tl'e pr titioner in the commission l1'the aforesaid crime. 3

6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that though the petitioner claims to be owner of the subject vehicle and not belng aware of its usage in illegal transpoftation of liquor, he cannot absolve himself of liability of the subject vehicle being used for illegal transpoftation of large quantity of liquor without any valid permission or licence from the concerned authority,

7. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the subject vehicle being claimed by the petitioner was found to be carrying consignment of liquor i.e. 1028 bottles of various brands of IML liquor and beer including defence liquor; that the petitioner on being issued with a show cause notice by the 3'd respondent, though submitted an explanation dt.27.06.2016, did not produce any material to show that the subject vehicle having been given on daily hire basis to the driver K.Ramesh, who was found transporting the liquor illegally without valid permission and licence in the said vehicle, and on the other hand, the petitioner requested the authorities to release the vehicle on humanitarian ground without denying his role in the ofFence by pleading that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the subject vehicle on daily hire basis' B. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, not only the contraband that is liable to be seized but also the vehicle which is used for transporting the a 4 aforesaid conti aband is liable to be confiscated and accrrrlirgly, the 3d respondent ha'l confiscated the subject vehicle after issLirq ;how cause notice and als I considering his explanation submitted $rer:to by the petitloner.

9. On beh; lt of the respondents, it is further cont:r deC that the petitioner aqqri :,zed by the aforesaid order of the 3d respcnd:nt though had preferred lr appeal to the 2nd respondent authority eren in the appeal, excent trting that on the said date i.e. dt.27.02.2016, .he subject vehicle was qiv llr to the driver on daily hire basis, did ntt produce any material to s;ho v that he is not involved in the commissio r .f the said crime to considl' his case for release of the subject vehice ty the 2nd respondent.

10. On behall tf the respondents, it is also contended t1.t t1e ground of mens re, h n )t avairable to the petitioner, since, the petiri.nr r ought to have taken p.ofer care while giving the subject vehicJe or all.:ged daily hire basis, for h , to craim of his innocence or rore in the c.m nissron of the aforesaid o'fence. By contending as above, learned Gr vernment Pleader seeks for rlismissal of the Writ petition. 11 I have lak :n note of the respective contentions urged

72. A reading of the order of the 3d respondent by whir:h tl-e subject vehicle of the pe1 itioner has been confiscated initially would slrr:v, g661 16. a 5 same was found transporting a large quantity of liquor i.e. 1028 bottles of various brands of IML liquor and beer without having any valid permission or licence from the concerned authorlty, for which the 4th respondent authority had registered a case vide Crime No.102 of 2016 under the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, involving the petltioner's vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23W 7545.

13. A further reading of the order of the 3'd respondent would also show that on the 3'd respondent initiating action against the illegal transpoftation of liquor by using the vehicle of the petitioner, i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545, the respondents- authorities having issued show cause notice to the petitioner rurile Cr.No.Cl72l2Ol6lDCM dt.23.06.2016, gave an opportunity to him to submit his defence as to why the aforesaid vehicle is not liable for confiscation under Section 46 of the Act.

14. A further reading of the said order of the 3'd respondent would show that the petitioner on being served with the show cause notice had submitted his explanation on 27.06.2016 seeking release of the vehicle on humanitarian grounds but did not produce any evidence as to he having given the subject vehicle on daily hire basis on the said day to K.Ramesh by obtaining any security. 6 f..

15. The pe'itioner also did not place any material ,)ef lre the 3rd respondent to ;ubstantiate his claim of he being eking out his ,ivelihood by giving the stl-.-::t vehicle on daily hire basis regularly anci lhu j, not being aware of rts rn, clvement in the commission of the offence o r t re said date for which Crn': No.102 of 2016 has been registered, so es to prove his bona fides.

16. Further, Lhe petitioner even in the appeal fi e,l before the 2nd responrier t authority, except claiming that on :he day i.e. dt.27.02.2016, .he vehicle was given to his driver for daily lire basis,, and I am not ir;vo,t,:d in the sald crlme and earller c.rime t:_.a se, and I am neither liquc, s:tter nor transporter of the said iquort did not p"oduce any material and sc,:ght for release of the subject vehicle by irrp,sing some penalty on h I m, rrr ita ria n grounds.

17. The 2'i espondent however at the time of hearinq tf :he appeal on 30.07.20i6, trhich was duly attended by the petitioner, hrd noted that though the pet tioner had feigned ignorance wrth regarcl :c the illegal transportation r f the contraband goods, transportation of :uch huge quantity of liquc r illegally without having valid permission 1lr li( ence from the concerned a rrhority and seiling the same at high rates in be t shops in Kollur Villaqer ( ) rrd not be possibre without the conn v rnr e of the petitioner ano ac:rtrdingly, dismissed the appeal. ..' 7

18. Even before this Court, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is only the owner of the vehicle and not involved in the commission of the illegal transportation of liquor, vide Crime No.102 of 2016 d1.27.02.2016 and he having given his vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23W 7545 to K.Ramesh on daily hire basis, no material is placed before this Court to accept the aforesaid submission of petitioner, as to on what basis the petitioner has given the subject vehicle to K.Ramesh on daily hire basis.

19. Even assuming that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by giving his vehicle on daily hire basis, he would obtain some kind of security before handing over the vehicle to the driver in the form of keeping the original driving licence and also some third pa rty security to \ \ ensure safety of his vehicle. No such material is placed before this Court nor such a plea is taken in response to the show cause notice issued by the 3'd respondent or in the appeal filed before the 2nd respondent and the said authorities having failed to take note of the same.

20. The petitioner by merely claiming that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the subject vehicle on daily hire basis cannot absolve himself even though the subject vehicle being involved in the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Act for the authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner, more so, having regard to the large consignment 8 of liquor beinc transported without any valid permission or licence for being sold to br:ll shops in the Kollur Village.

21. For th€ ,lf oresaid reason, this Court is of the view thirt the order of the 3'd respcnrl€ nt in confiscating the subject vehicle of th,. grgtiti6ngp ;n exercise of powr:rs conferred On it under Section 46 of th: l\ct and the further actic;n tr' the 2nd respondent authority in dismisrjing the appeal preferred b\, tt-€ petltioner, does not suffer from any illerlal ly, thereby calling for inl:erlerence by this Court.

22. Thus, tl-r: Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, iisrnissed. No order as to (os1 s

23. Miscellareous petitions, if any, pending in this writ pt:tition shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SDAP, I \ QH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGTSTR*R SI;:CTION OFFICER Hyderabad 3UTl 1 One CC io 'iRl. V. RAMCHANDER GOUD. Advocate IOrtJct Z .f,yg CCs to GP_FOR HOME, High Court for tt{State'or Tr ta'ngana, at 3 fwo CCs to GP FOR PRO_HIB_!-TION & EXCISE ,High r3,rurt for the Slate of 4. Two QD tlopies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI v BM BS N. l i I I l I I i I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 VACATION GOURT i i \lr- ii I 4l-s ,,. .ic" ,.j o 05 ilh M o \\ '1'-...',. * ORDER WP.No.37486 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 ) 2 6 6