D. M. Mahabub v. District
Case at a glance
- Bench
- V ESWARAIAH
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 ss. 7(a), 8(e)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The writ petition has been filed questioning the confiscation order after the vehicle has been disposed in July 2001. However, as against the confiscation order an appeal lies to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner without availing the appellate remedy straightaway filed…
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner submits that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No. CTX 8198 and the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Rayadurg, Anantapur District seized the said vehicle on 23.12.1999 while it was said to have been transporting 200 polythene bags containing 300 arrack sachets each totaling to 60,000 arrack sachets and arrested the driver of the vehicle viz. Chakali Venkatesulu (A1) and the cleaner, Uppara Eswara (A2) and registered a case in cr. No.49/1999-2000 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Rayadurg for the offence under Section 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.
Petitioner submits that he filed an application through his counsel before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Anantapur, for the interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.03.2000 ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner on his furnishing Bank Guarantee/FDR for Rs.95,000/-; third party surety for Rs.80,000/- and filing an undertaking to the effect that the vehicle shall not be sold or transferred to any third party pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. As the petitioner could not comply with the said conditions, the vehicle could not be released. He further submits that, while so, without issuing a show cause notice to him for confiscation, a show cause notice was issued to his counsel on
24.04.2000 and as the counsel failed to file an explanation, the impugned order dated 03.07.2000 has been passed by the second respondent. Questioning the same this writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle has not been given any reasonable opportunity by issuing a show cause notice, therefore, the show cause notice issued to his counsel is not valid or binding on him, therefore, the confiscation of the vehicle is illegal and unsustainable.
Petitioner is not disputing the issuance of the show cause notice to his counsel and it is his case that he has not received the show cause notice through his counsel. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel made a representation/filed an explanation to the show cause notice.
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that the confiscation proceedings have been passed on 03.07.2000 and the vehicle was also auctioned and disposed of in July 2001.
The writ petition has been filed questioning the confiscation order after the vehicle has been disposed in July 2001. However, as against the confiscation order an appeal lies to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner without availing the appellate remedy straightaway filed this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. June 16, 2008 DSK ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J
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.