Maddi Rajkumar Gopi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- A.P.Excise Act, 1968 s. 34(a)
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner submits that he is the owner of the Bajaj Scooter bearing No.AP 31AG 6627 and the said vehicle was seized in connection with F.I.R.No.19/2005-06 for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Visakhapatnam-II. Whenever a vehicle has been seized in connection with excise offence, the concerned authority to release or confiscate the said vehicle is the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
concerned authority is the first respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any application before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for interim custody of the vehicle. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the first respondent for interim custody of the said vehicle pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. No costs. _________________
(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)
11.11.2005
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.