ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.02.2021 for releasing the petitioner’s vehicle is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of AP Excise Act and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to return the vehicle No. AP 03 TV 0889 Motor Cab (Tata Motors Limited) by accepting the third party surety of the 10 percent value of the total vehicle of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2) Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the material available on record. With the consent of both counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3) The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TV 0889 Motor Cab. The said vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent alleging illegal transportation of the liquor bottles and a case was registered in Crime No.284 of 2020 of Baireddypalle Police Station, Chittor District, under Sections 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. 4) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 15.02.2021, the petitioner made an application to the respondents No. 3 seeking to release the seized vehicle, but it was not considered till date. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ petition is filed. 5) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner, dated 15.02.2021, the 3rd respondent sought ownership particulars of the vehicle from the concerned RTA office and they did not receive those particulars till date. 6) The reason submitted by the learned Government Pleader for not considering the representation of the petitioner for the last one and half month is not acceptable. It is the duty of the respondents to get required particulars from the concerned authorities. 6) The reason submitted by the learned Government Pleader for not considering the representation of the petitioner for the last one and half month is not acceptable. It is the duty of the respondents to get required particulars from the concerned authorities. The representation of the petitioner has to be considered in a reasonable time, as the said vehicle was seized on 25.09.2020, and thereafter the same was kept in the 4th respondent’s police station. The said vehicle will be damaged due to exposure to the sun and rain. 7) In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be met by directing the respondents to consider and pass orders to dispose of the representation, dated 15.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner. 8) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation, dated 15.02.2021 submitted by the petitioner to release the vehicle bearing No. AP 03 TV 0889 (Motor Cab), for interim custody of the petitioner by taking collateral security for the value of the said vehicle from the petitioner within a period of one (1) week from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.