ORDER : 1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the order passed by the 2nd respondent Cr.No.491/2020/SEB/C1 dated 04.11.2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.813/2020/B2 dated 19.8.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to set aside the orders passed by the respondents 2 and 3. 2. Heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader of Prohibition & Excise for respondents. 3. As per the averments in the affidavit, the 1st petitioner is the owner of the lorry bearing registration no.TN 33 AS 4896 and doing transport business. The 2nd petitioner is a registered trader doing business in the name and style as ‘Shree Shastika Traders’ with TSTIN:33AYTPN8678CIZT. On 25.5.2020 at about 05.30pm the 4th respondent has intercepted the vehicle bearing registration no.TN 33 AS 4896 and seized the vehicle and jaggery of 500 bags each bag containing 30kgs of jaggery, on the ground that the jaggery being transporting for ID distillation purpose and registered a crime no.92 of 2020 for the offence u/s.34(e), 50, 34 (2) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act 1995 and section 3 of the GUR (regulation of use) Order 1968. Basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has initiated proceedings to confiscate the seized lorry as well as stock. 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice on 07.7.2020 to the 1st petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the seized property should not be confiscated to the Government u/s.45(3) and 46-A of A.P.Excise Act 1968. The 1st petitioner was suffering with severe pain on left leg and fever and he was admitted in a hospital at Puttaparthi. The said show cause notice was served on the petitioner when he was in hospital. The 1st petitioner underwent an operation and due to pandemic, the Doctor advised him not to go outside. Due to the same, the 1st petitioner has not submitted his explanation and attended for enquiry before the 3rd respondent subsequent to the notice dated 07.7.2020. It is not out of place to mention that the 3rd respondent has not issued any notice to the 2nd petitioner who is the owner of the seized stock. Due to the same, the 1st petitioner has not submitted his explanation and attended for enquiry before the 3rd respondent subsequent to the notice dated 07.7.2020. It is not out of place to mention that the 3rd respondent has not issued any notice to the 2nd petitioner who is the owner of the seized stock. The 3rd respondent after show cause notice to the petitioner, has obtained medical analysis report from the competent authorities and without supplying the same to the petitioners and without following the procedure contemplated under section 46(6) of A.P.Excise Act 1968, the 3rd respondent has passed order without conducting any enquiry. The 3rd respondent passed the said order mainly on the ground that for not submitting explanation by the 1st petitioner, he has concluded saying that left with no option he has passed confiscation orders dated 19.8.2020. 4. Aggrieved by the said proceedings of the 3rd respondent, 1st petitioner herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The appeal filed by the 1st petitioner before the 2nd respondent, the 1st petitioner has produced medical report and photos of his left leg position and also other relevant material to support his contentions. Apart from that, the seized stock is covered by way bill and tax invoice. The tax invoice clearly shows the ownership of the seized stock in the name of the 2nd petitioner. It is also stated that tax invoice no.0043 dated 24.5.2020 is in the name of Nitisha Traders, product, quantity and vehicle number were also shown. The 2nd respondent while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioners without appreciating the evidence placed before him along with the appeal in a perspective manner has rejected on flimsy grounds. 5. The jaggery was seized on movement transporting it to Santhinagar, Gadwal, Telangana State and it is not found with any intoxicant material. As decided by the Hon’ble High Court in various writ petitions that the possession and transportation of jaggery is not an offence under section 34 of the Excise Act. Infact the jaggery is not an intoxicant within the meaning of section 2(19). No other material was found along with the jaggery. Hence it cannot be concluded that the property seized can be used as an intoxicant of illicit manufacturing under section 52 of A.P.Excise Act. Infact the jaggery is not an intoxicant within the meaning of section 2(19). No other material was found along with the jaggery. Hence it cannot be concluded that the property seized can be used as an intoxicant of illicit manufacturing under section 52 of A.P.Excise Act. Without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, the 2nd respondent has rejected the appeal in his order dated 04.11.2020. Hence the writ petition. 6. 2nd respondent has filed counter denying the allegations made in the writ petition. During the pandemic, as per the guidelines issued by the Central Government during total lockdown, police authorities have regularly conducting checking to the vehicles movement to control ingress and egress of entry into the District jurisdiction. At that point of time on 25.5.2020 at about 7.30 p.m., on receipt of credible information, the 4th respondent and his staff were conducting regular checking on National Highway 44 at Somadevapalli within the limits of 4th respondent and found a vehicle Ashok Leyland make lorry bearing no.TN 33 AS 4896 coming from Bangalore high way and on noticing police personnel in uniform, the driver of the lorry accelerated speed of the vehicle to escape from police. However, the 4th respondent succeeded to intercept the vehicle and on enquiry who is the sole person in the lorry revealed that the lorry containing jaggery of 500 polythene bags each bag containing nearly 30kgs which comes to total 15,000 kgs. On further enquiry, the driver of the vehicle revealed that the details of the owner of the vehicle and he could not produce any way bill or transport permits in respect of the jaggery which is being transported in the said vehicle. On further enquiry, the driver of the vehicle has revealed that the jaggery was gathered from unknown people at Pilakayalapalem, Namakal Distrcit of Tamilnadu state and he has instructions from the owner of the vehicle that the jaggery should be delivered at Jogulamba Gadwal District of Telangana State for distillation of ID liquor. Basing on the confession of the driver, the 4th respondent has seized the lorry and contraband under cover of mediators report and registered Crime No.925 of 2020 dated 25.5.2020 for the offences punishable u/s.34(e), 50, 34(2) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Excise Act 1995 and Sec.3 of GUR Regulation of use order 1968. Basing on the confession of the driver, the 4th respondent has seized the lorry and contraband under cover of mediators report and registered Crime No.925 of 2020 dated 25.5.2020 for the offences punishable u/s.34(e), 50, 34(2) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Excise Act 1995 and Sec.3 of GUR Regulation of use order 1968. Subsequent to the registration of the crime, 4th respondent has submitted the proposal for confiscation of the vehicle and contraband before the 3rd respondent u/s.46(2) of the Act. In pursuance to the proposal submitted by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued show cause notice dated 07.7.2020 u/s.46(A) of the Act to the 1st petitioner on 10.7.2020. Despite the notice, when the petitioner has not submitted any explanation after completing the statutory period, left with no option, the 3rd respondent has confiscated the stock as well as vehicle to the State as per the provisions of the Act. The question of carrying of jaggery being legal or illegal, cannot be decided at this stage and moreover he is not questioning the registration of crime and hence his contention will not stand to scrutiny and it may be true that if the jaggery is found in personal possession and may be useful to the human consumption it may not be an offence but in the present instance, contraband was seized and sent for chemical analysis wherein the analysis report clearly reveals that the same is not useful for the human consumption. Therefore, it may be construed that the jaggery which is not useful for human consumption will be used for distillation of ID liquor. Hence the contention of the petitioner is not tenable. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner has filed an appeal u/s.46(c) of the Act before the 2nd respondent. Having relinquished his right at the stage of confiscation proceedings, 1st petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent which is not at all maintainable. Reply to the contention of the 1st petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not given fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation is wholly wrong and the fact remains that the 3rd respondent gave 15 days period statutory notice to the petitioner and waited for almost 40 days. Reply to the contention of the 1st petitioner that the 3rd respondent has not given fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation is wholly wrong and the fact remains that the 3rd respondent gave 15 days period statutory notice to the petitioner and waited for almost 40 days. But the 1st petitioner did not choose to file his explanation and now he cannot claim that the 3rd respondent has not given any reasonable opportunity and passed confiscation orders as per rules. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent dated 04.11.2020 mainly on two grounds. First one is initially the 3rd respondent has not followed the principles of natural justice and also the procedure contemplated under section 46(6) of A.P.Excise Act 1968. Secondly, the order passed by the respondent is contrary to the ratio decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Chindura Muthaiah and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and Ors. 2006(2) ALD 367 in W.P.No.16379 and 16389 of 2005 dated 07.12.2005. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per clause 19, 20 and 21 of Section 2 of the Act defines intoxicant, intoxicating drug and liquor. Section 34 deals with penalties for illegal import etc. Section 34(e) says uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy. Section 45 deals with Liability of certain things to confiscation. Section 46 deals with Confiscation by Excise Officers in certain cases. In view of clause 19, 20 and 21 of section 2 of the Act, jaggery is not an intoxicant, intoxicating drug or liquor. Hence the authorities invoking section 34(e) and passing orders under section 46(6) is bad in law. Hence the orders passed by the 3rd respondent under section 46(e) is totally non-application of mind. The orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings dated 19.8.2020 clearly establishes that without issuing any notice to the 2nd petitioner, he has issued notice only to the 1st petitioner on 07.7.2020 and for not submitting the explanation by the 1st petitioner, the 3rd respondent has passed orders confiscating the lorry as well as the stock under section 46(c) of the Act. As against, the petitioner has preferred an appeal with all relevant material, but without considering the same, the 2nd respondent has passed order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel further stated that while filing an appeal, the petitioners have raised a ground that the 1st petitioner has been admitted in hospital due to severe diabetes and other problems and he has submitted that he had underwent surgery and as advised by Doctor, he could not be able to move out side inview of pandemic. Without considering that aspect, the 1st respondent has rejected the contention saying as per the documents submitted by the 1st petitioner, the petitioner was in hospital from 27.7.2020 to 06.8.2020. Hence even before admitting into the hospital or after discharging from hospital they may submit their explanation. Hence the ground of admitting into the hospital was rejected saying that the orders were passed by the 3rd respondent after waiting longer period than the period prescribed in the statute. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent has not considered the way bill as well as tax invoice filed along with the appeal. The 2nd respondent has rejected the contention of the petitioner only on the ground that the tax invoice and way bills were taken at 00.45 a.m. on 26.5.2020. But the instant crime is occurred on 25.5.2020 at 7.30 a.m. Hence the print out of the way bills as well as the invoice was taken by the petitioners after the crime. Hence the same is not taken into consideration and rejected. But it is not in dispute that the tax invoice is dated 24.5.2020 and in the e-way bill it is clearly mentioned that invoice 43/24.5.2020 and they have also mentioned the vehicle details in the e-way bill i.e. vehicle no.TN 33 AS 4896 and the date entered from Enlared, Entered date 25.5.2020/0-6.45 AM and the tax invoice filed along with the appeal clearly indicates that it is in the name of Nitisha traders, Santhi Nagar, Telangana and the name of the stock is cane jaggery 30 kg bags 500 bags and the vehicle number is TN 33 AS 4896 dated 24.5.2020. Hence without considering the dates entered in the tax invoice as well as e-way bill, the 2nd respondent has taken the date of the print out of the said document into consideration and rejected that the said documents were obtained subsequent to the crime, is baseless and illegal. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the 2nd respondent has rejected the appeal on the other ground that the analysis report of the Government Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor that the jaggery/stock is not useful for human consumption and hence presumed that the jaggery which is not useful for human consumption will be used only for distillation of ID liquor. But fact remains is that the analysis report clearly stipulate that the sample numbers 10.772 and 10.773 are contains reducing sugars. It is jaggery which can be used as raw material in the manufacturing of illicitly distilled liquor. When the report says that it can be used as raw material and there is no specific observation in the analysis report that it is not useful for human consumption, the authorities cannot presume and assume the report and pass the impugned orders by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Finally in an identical case of the Hon’ble High Court it was clearly held that since admittedly, the petitioners were only transporting black jaggery, but did not indulge in manufacture of an intoxicant. Merely because the vehicle was found in a different route and the same was intercepted and the respondents cannot presume that the petitioners had indulged in manufacture of an intoxicant within the meaning of section 34(e) of the Act and held that the respondents failed to appreciate the facts in a perspective manner and passed confiscation orders mechanically and the same was set aside. Even in the instant case also, the authorities have seized the stock as well as the vehicle only on the ground that the petitioners are transporting the jaggery for ID liquor and passed confiscation orders under section 46(6) is wholly misconceived and the same may be set aside. 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the 3rd respondent has no knowledge about the owner of the stock. Hence he has issued notice only to the owner of the vehicle i.e. 1st petitioner herein. 11. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the 3rd respondent has no knowledge about the owner of the stock. Hence he has issued notice only to the owner of the vehicle i.e. 1st petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the notice was served on the 1st petitioner but he has not chosen to submit his explanation within the time despite that the 3rd respondent has waited for 40 days and passed the impugned orders. Hence there is no illegality in the orders. As against the same, the 1st petitioner alone has filed an appeal and even in the appeal was also considered all the facts and grounds raised by the 1st petitioner was considered by the 2nd respondent and disposed of on merits in accordance with Rules. Further stated that here the petitioners have not challenged the crime. Hence the ratio decided by the High Court is not applicable to the present case and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Having heard both sides and considering the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent while passing orders under section 46 has not conducted any enquiry contemplated under section 46(6). On perusal of the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 19.8.2020 it clearly reveals that only on the ground of non-submitting the explanation by the petitioner, he has passed the confiscation orders under section 46 of A.P.Excise Act 1968. On perusal of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 04.11.2020 when there is a specific ground raised by the 1st petitioner with regard to submission of medical documents, instead of considering the documents in perspective manner, the 2nd respondent has only taken the dates into consideration and rejected the claim of the petitioner and secondly though the petitioner has filed e-way bill as well as tax invoice without considering the merits of the documents, the date of print of the document is taken into consideration and rejected that the print outs are taken subsequent to the crime and rejected the claim. 13. In view of the above and also considering the judgment relied 2nd on by the petitioners, the impugned orders passed by the respondent in Cr.No.491/2020/SEB/C1 dated 04.11.2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.813/2020/B2 dated 19.8.2020 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent. 13. In view of the above and also considering the judgment relied 2nd on by the petitioners, the impugned orders passed by the respondent in Cr.No.491/2020/SEB/C1 dated 04.11.2020 confirming the order of the 3rd respondent passed in Rc.No.813/2020/B2 dated 19.8.2020 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 3rd respondent. Petitioners are given liberty to submit their explanation along with all other material and relevant judgment copies and on submitting the same by the petitioners to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per Rules. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.