Mohd . Ahmed v. Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 226
- Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 s. 34(a)
- Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 s. 13(2)
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in calling fro records in respect of order passed in Cr.No.8682/03/CPE/04 dt. 10/11/2003 of the 1st Respondent confirming the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent authority in proceedings Rc.No.C7/5134/02 dt. 05/03/2003 and quash the same as the same are in gross violation of Articles 14,21 of the constitution of India and also in gross violation of principles of Natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBIT ION & EXCISE T he Court made the following : T HE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PET IT ION No.11668 of 2004
ORDER:
The petitioner is owner of Allwyn Nissan Vehicle The Prohibition and Excise bearing No.ABT 4569. Inspector and Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Excise Station, during the route watch on 06.10.2002 seized the vehicle when it was carrying huge quantity of black jaggery. Crime No.375/02-03 was registered under Section 34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. After receiving the report, the second respondent passed orders on 05.03.2003 confiscating the vehicle under Section 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the first respondent, which was dismissed on
Operative part
10.11.2003. In this writ petition filed challenging the order of Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise confirming order of the second respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of confiscation is bad for want of notice, that petitioner had no knowledge that his vehicle was used for commission of excise offence, and that there is no prohibition for transporting black jaggery. This Court while perusing the order of the first respondent noticed the following observations therein. …A perusal of the records reveals that the driver/accused was found transporting 100 ltrs of I.D.liquor in two cans each can containing 50 ltrs of I.D liquor. In the panchanama accused No.2 N.Anjaiah stated that he was doing kirana business since last three years and selling black jaggery, Navasagaram and alum to the ID liquor manufacturers in and around Harshaguda thanda. On demand the accused No.2 N.Anjaiah did not produce any way-bill, permit, purchase receipt jaggery, Navasagaram and alum. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that he has given the vehicle on lease to the driver, the contention that he has no knowledge of the alleged offence is not tenable… in respect of black The order of the Deputy Commissioner would belie any averment made by the Commissioner that vehicle was found transporting 100 litres of ID liquor. This would show that the Commissioner has not applied mind with the facts of the case and passed order in a routine manner. This is an incurable defect, and the matter is liable to be remitted to the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner and dispose of the matter in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
23.10.2008 ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) To 1 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition &Excise Hyderabad 3 Prohibition & Exicse Inspector, SHO., Maheshwaram Ranga Reddy District. 4 2CCs to G.P for Prohibition & Excise, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 — s. 34(a); Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 — s. 13(2).
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.