IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20902 of 2014 Between:
Dantuluri Palla Raju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Annakoderu Village, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.
.. Petitioner AND Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Eluru, West Godavari District & another .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20902 of 2014 ORDER:
With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for admission and disposed of at the admission stage.
2. Petitioner is the owner of a four wheeler vehicle (Car), manufactured by Hyundai company with brand name as ‘i20’ bearing No.AP37 BX 1116. This vehicle was seized while the vehicle was going on the road on the allegation that in the vehicle, 480 Nips of Indian Made Liquor (IML) were found being transported and such transportation of the Nips violates the provisions of Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’). A show cause notice, dated 26.05.2014, was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to explain why the vehicle should not be confiscated on the allegation of violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, dated 10.06.2014. The petitioner has taken the defence that he has not committed any crime and that he was not aware of committing of any crime by his driver. He had no knowledge. He further contended that his vehicle is not involved in violation of the provisions of the Act. Order, dated 18.06.2014, is passed confiscating the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle has violated the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Act and that the petitioner was not aware as to what provision of the Act is violated by him warranting action against him under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 34(a) of the Act enumerates various contingencies in which contravention can be attributed to a person and appropriate penalties can be imposed. In Section 34(a) of the Act, there is a reference to transportation of intoxicants. This is a general provision which prohibits transportation of intoxicant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation that 480 Nibs found in the vehicle of the petitioner were prohibited by the provisions of the Act warranting initiation of prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the driver of the vehicle has admitted that the owner has no role in the transportation and that he was transporting 480 Nibs to his village to be sold in the village where he would fetch better price than the price at which he purchased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is illegal to pass an order which has penal consequences without objectively considering the objections and passing a reasoned order as to why the objections filed are not valid. The order should also contain the provisions of law which are violated necessitating taking such a serious action. As the order is silent and, therefore, it is nonest in the eye of law and it is liable to be set aside on that ground alone.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is reference to Section 34(a) of the Act which taking action. Section 34(a) of the Act refers to transportation also as an offence and any vehicle which is involved in transportation of prohibited items can be proceeded against and that there is no requirement of personal knowledge of the owner of the vehicle for implicating the vehicle involved when the vehicle is found to have been transporting such prohibited items. However, learned Government Pleader is unable to explain as to how a decision is arrived to say that prohibited item is being transported. Learned Government Pleader is also fair in submitting that the order does not disclose the reasons in support of the decision to confiscate the vehicle.
5. Principle of law is well-settled and needs no reiteration that whenever an adverse order is passed by an authority exercising powers under a statute which have serious evil and civil consequences, such order shall be preceded by an elaborate procedure. A notice calling for explanation should contain details of violations committed by him, should call for his explanation, consider his explanation and if necessary, by affording an opportunity of hearing and after considering the explanation, by dealing with all the objections, pass a reasoned order in support of the decision. The present order is bereft of reasons. It does not indicate which provision of law is violated and how the vehicle is involved in violation of the provisions of the Act. It is also not the case as apparent from the reading of the order impugned that the transported items were prohibited items. It is also not the case that the petitioner was involved in the crime. Thus, the order on the face of it is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
6. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if they have sufficient material in support of their stand that the contraband seized is a prohibited item and would attract the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. In such a case, the petitioner shall be given reasonable opportunity before passing orders against him, as warranted by law. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 37BX 1116 forthwith. 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: 1st August, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20902 of 2014 Date: 1st August, 2014