IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 28285 of 2014 BETWEEN Karri Raju AND ... PETITIONER 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner is the owner of an auto bearing No.AP 5 2929 T/R. The said vehicle was checked, searched and seized by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayavaram Police Station and a case in crime No.91 of 2012 under Section 34A of the A.P.Excise Act read with section 171(e) IPC and 123(1)(a) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 was registered. The said vehicle is stated to be under custody of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchili. Petitioner, who seeks release of the said vehicle, states that the Station House Officer submitted proposal for confiscation of the said vehicle. Hence, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of Excise seeking release of the said vehicle. However, the Deputy Commissioner under his proceedings vide Rc.No.96/2013/B2, dated 01.02.2014, directed confiscation of the said vehicle. But, however, the owner of the vehicle was given liberty to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise within sixty days. Petitioner states that aggrieved by the said order, he has already filed an appeal under Section 63(2) of the A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act before the Commissioner on 07.02.2014 and resubmitted on 26.02.2014. Present writ petition is filed questioning the order of confiscation passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that since the appeal of the petitioner is pending before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the issue with regard to confiscation will be examined by the appellate authority.
4. In view of the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner before respondent No.2 herein, the issue relating to validity or otherwise of the confiscation order need not be gone into in this writ petition as the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, which is already availed.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the appeal after notice and hearing the parties and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 6 , 2014 LMV