Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that a notice, dated 23.12.2011, had been issued to one P.Sivakumar, the owner of the vehicle in question, asking him to show cause as to why the said vehicle should not be confiscated, under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is the present owner of the vehicle in question, as he had purchased the said vehicle from P.Sivakumar. Therefore, he had submitted that he would appear before the second respondent, along with the relevant documents, to show cause as to why the vehicle in question should not be confiscated, under Section 14(4) of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 4. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is made clear that it would be open to him to appear before the second respondent, along with the relevant documents, to show that he is the present owner of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, on his submitting the necessary explanation, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.