IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 34977 of 2014 BETWEEN K.Ravi ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The 4th respondent seized the goods as well as vehicle on 29.03.2014 after registering a case in Cr.No.35 of 2014 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the A.P.Excise Act.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that immediately after seizure of the vehicle as well as seized goods, the 4th respondent ought to have deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or with the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, in stead he has retained the same and forced the petitioner to move this writ petition.
4. Though the petitioner was granted custody of the vehicle, the seized goods were not deposited either with the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or with the concerned jurisdictional Court and only after this writ petition was entertained, the goods are stated to have deposited with the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise today.
5. Since the petitioner makes serious allegations against deliberate inaction on the part of the 4th respondent, let a counter affidavit be filed by the 4th respondent showing the reasons why prompt action was not taken after seizure of the goods.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Excise has produced copy of the letter of the Sub-Inspector of Police, wherein he has delivered the case papers along with the case documents to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, and the same is acknowledged by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 04.12.2014.
7. This case also depicts that though the seizure was effected on 29.03.2014, the Sub-Inspector of Police of respondent No.4 police station, has moved in the matter only on 04.12.2014 by depositing the case papers along with the case property with the Deputy Commissioner of Excise. Since this court has noticed the aforesaid lapse on the part of respondent No.4, in spite of pendency of this writ petition and hearings on more than four occasions, respondent No.4 appears to have acted only on the last minute on finding that this court is taking serious view. The attitude on behalf of respondent No.4 or its Inspector or Sub-Inspector, who is found responsible, is therefore required to be dealt with sternly by the superior police officers as recourse on such an event at any police station would deprive the owner of the goods from seeking release of the goods by approaching the competent authority. Respondent No.4 or the officer responsible, therefore, has successfully prevented the petitioner from approaching the competent court for seeking release of the goods and such attitude, therefore, is required to be investigated properly and appropriate preventive action is required to be taken.
8. The Superintended of Police, Chittoor shall, therefore call for explanation from the officer responsible from respondent No.4 police station to conduct an appropriate enquiry and take appropriate action against the officer found guilty for deliberately not acting in the matter in accordance with the duties imposed on him. Registry shall mark a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for appropriate action and a compliance report shall be filed before this court by the Superintendent of Police within two months from today.
9. In the meanwhile, since the goods are now in the custody of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application before the Deputy Commissioner seeking release of the said goods.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 5, 2014 LMV