Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 118 (AP)

Ashok Mistry v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-28

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - Heard Sri K.Dheeraj Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.D.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle i.e., Mahindra XUV Car registered bearing No.OD02-BR-7482. The said vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent on 17.09.2021 alleging illegal transportation of some liquor bottles in it and registered a case in Cr.No.589 of 2021 under the provisions of the andhra Pradesh Excise act, 1968. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 11.10.2021 issued to the petitioner. as the petitioner failed to submit his explanation, the 3rd respondent basing on the material available on record passed order on 06.12.2021 confiscating the seized vehicle. aggrieved by the confiscation order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 24.12.2021 and along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking release of the vehicle for interim custody pending disposal of the appeal. as the vehicle was not released for interim custody, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 11.10.2021 due to the reason that the said notice was received by the petitioner after stipulated period. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner made an application before the Special additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Prohibition and Excise Court at Kurnool for release of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings instead of filing an application before the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 06.12.2021 confiscating the seized vehicle, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and along with the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking release of the vehicle for interim custody pending appeal proceedings. The 2nd respondent did not consider the application for release of the vehicle for interim custody. 6. The 2nd respondent did not consider the application for release of the vehicle for interim custody. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle is kept in the police station since 17.09.2021 i.e., from the date of the seizure of the vehicle in the premises of the 4th respondent police station. The vehicle is being damaged due to exposure to sun and rain and if the vehicle is not released, it will loose its roadworthiness and requested to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the interlocutory application field by the petitioner along with the appeal. 7. Learned assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents on instructions submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner on 24.12.2021 and immediately on 04.01.2022, this Writ Petition is filed for release of the vehicle for interim custody. The respondents have to assess the value of the vehicle through concerned RTa people and without ascertaining the value of the vehicle, it is not possible to consider the application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal. 8. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court noted that there is no dispute with regard to the seizure of the vehicle or passing confiscation order by the 3rd respondent and also filing of the appeal before the 2nd respondent. The only issue to be considered in this Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to release the confiscated vehicle in favour of the petitioner pending appellate proceedings. 9. This Court satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle will be damaged due to exposure to sun and rain by keeping the vehicle in the open place of the 4th respondent police station for all these days. Once the vehicle loose its roadworthiness, it is not useful for the petitioner or the respondents. 10. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable and appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal for release of the vehicle as the interim measure pending appellate proceedings to meet the interest of justice. 11. accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions... 10. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable and appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal for release of the vehicle as the interim measure pending appellate proceedings to meet the interest of justice. 11. accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions... i) The 2nd respondent is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner seized in connection with a case in Cr.No.589 of 2021 on the file of the 4th respondent within a period of one (1) week from today by accepting the immovable security to be produced by the petitioner. ii) It is made clear that the immovable security shall be within the limits of the State of andhra Pradesh. iii) The petitioner shall submit solvency certificate of the immovable property issued by the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar/Panchayat Secretary/ Municipal Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated. iv) The petitioner shall produce encumbrance certificate obtained from online issued by the competent authority stating that the property is free from all encumbrances. v) The petitioner shall produce an affidavit stating that the immovable property which is produced as security for release of the vehicle shall not be alienated without knowledge/permission of the confiscating authority. vi) The petitioner is directed not to alienate the vehicle or change the physical features or create any encumbrance on the said vehicle. vii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle whenever it is required by the concerned authorities during pendency of the proceedings before them. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed