IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23536 of 2014 Between:
A. Arugula Ashaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 40 years, R/o. Ankireddy pally (V), Kondapak (M), Medak District.
.. Petitioner AND The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23536 of 2014 ORDER:
On the allegation that vehicle (Mini Van) of the petitioner bearing No.AP 23X 4773 was involved in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, confiscation proceedings were passed on 28.06.2013. Against an order of confiscation, appeal shall lie to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise within a period of two (2) months. The proceedings of confiscation, dated 28.06.2013, was served on 22.11.2013. Having waited for appropriate orders from the Commissioner and having noticed that no appeal was preferred within two months after the order of confiscation was served, the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Medak Division, Siddipet, Medak District (3rd respondent) passed orders on 30.01.2014 seizing the vehicle of the petitioner. Having realized that he ought to have preferred appeal immediately, but no appeal was preferred, the petitioner filed an appeal on 18.02.2014 before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nampally, Hyderabad (2nd respondent) and the said appeal is pending. On 22.04.2014, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition praying to condone the delay in filing the appeal. No further orders are passed by the Commissioner.
Hence, this writ petition challenging the orders, dated 30.01.2014.
2. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.2388 of 2012, interim custody of the vehicle was granted to the petitioner. Subsequently, confiscation orders were passed on 28.06.2013. Since the petitioner had an opportunity to prefer an appeal immediately, the possession of the vehicle was not taken. The Deputy Commissioner has waited for the exhausting of time for preferring an appeal and thereafter passed orders on 30.01.2014. By the time the seizure orders are passed on 30.01.2014, no appeal was preferred. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.01.2014 and, therefore, no writ can be issued to set aside the said order. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition does not bar prosecuting the appeal filed by the petitioner and consideration of the appeal and the prayer for condonation of delay ought to be independently considered by the Commissioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any orders passed by the Commissioner on his appeal or application for condonation of delay, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his further remedies.
3. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 14th August, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23536 of 2014 Date: 14th August, 2014 KL