ORDER : (T. VINOD KUMAR, J.) This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2 nd respondent in passing order, vide proceedings No.4539/2016/CPE/TS/D1 dt.11.08.2016, confirming the order passed by the 3 rd respondent in Cr.No.C/72/2016/DCM dt.04.07.2016, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and with a consequential direction to the respondents to release the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.4 and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545; that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the aforesaid vehicle on daily hire basis; that on the fateful day, he had given the aforesaid vehicle on daily hire basis to one Kavali Ramesh of the same village to drive the vehicle; that the aforesaid vehicle taken on daily hire basis was used for illegal transportation of liquor in the outskirts of Kollur Village; that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in Crime No.102 of 2016 dt.27.02.2016 registered in connection with the aforesaid illegal transportation of liquor; and that there is no mens rea on the part of the petitioner either in giving his vehicle on daily hire basis or with regard to his involvement in the aforesaid crime and thus, the vehicle which is confiscated by the respondents-authorities ought to have been released by the respondents to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner further contends that except the fact that one K.Ramesh, who is resident of Kollur Villave, wherein the petitioner resides, had taken the subject vehicle on daily hire basis from the petitioner, he is no way concerned with the alleged illegal transportation of liquor either by K.Ramesh, or the person, who had engaged the services of the said Ramesh for transporting liquor without having any valid permission or licence from the concerned authority, contravening the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’), thereby rendering the contraband i.e. liquor bottles illegally being transported along with the subject vehicle belonging to the petitioner liable for confiscation. 5. 5. It is also contended by the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent without considering his request for release of the vehicle, had erroneously passed the confiscation order which has further been affirmed by the 2 nd respondent without considering the non-involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the aforesaid crime. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that though the petitioner claims to be owner of the subject vehicle and not being aware of its usage in illegal transportation of liquor, he cannot absolve himself of liability of the subject vehicle being used for illegal transportation of large quantity of liquor without any valid permission or licence from the concerned authority. 7. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the subject vehicle being claimed by the petitioner was found to be carrying consignment of liquor i.e. 1028 bottles of various brands of IML liquor and beer including defence liquor; that the petitioner on being issued with a show cause notice by the 3 rd respondent, though submitted an explanation dt.27.06.2016, did not produce any material to show that the subject vehicle having been given on daily hire basis to the driver K.Ramesh, who was found transporting the liquor illegally without valid permission and licence in the said vehicle, and on the other hand, the petitioner requested the authorities to release the vehicle on humanitarian ground without denying his role in the offence by pleading that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the subject vehicle on daily hire basis. 8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that in terms of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, not only the contraband that is liable to be seized but also the vehicle which is used for transporting the aforesaid contraband is liable to be confiscated and accordingly, the 3 rd respondent had confiscated the subject vehicle after issuing show cause notice and also considering his explanation submitted thereto by the petitioner. 9. 9. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that the petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the 3 rd respondent though had preferred an appeal to the 2 nd respondent authority, even in the appeal, except stating that on the said date i.e. dt.27.02.2016, the subject vehicle was given to the driver on daily hire basis, did not produce any material to show that he is not involved in the commission of the said crime to consider his case for release of the subject vehicle by the 2 nd respondent. 10. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the ground of mens rea is not available to the petitioner, since, the petitioner ought to have taken proper care while giving the subject vehicle on alleged daily hire basis, for him to claim of his innocence or role in the commission of the aforesaid offence. By contending as above, learned Government Pleader seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 12. A reading of the order of the 3 rd respondent by which the subject vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated initially would show that the same was found transporting a large quantity of liquor i.e. 1028 bottles of various brands of IML liquor and beer without having any valid permission or licence from the concerned authority, for which the 4 th respondent authority had registered a case vide Crime No.102 of 2016 under the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, involving the petitioner’s vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545. 13. A further reading of the order of the 3 rd respondent would also show that on the 3 rd respondent initiating action against the illegal transportation of liquor by using the vehicle of the petitioner, i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545, the respondents- authorities having issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide Cr.No.C/72/2016/DCM dt.23.06.2016, gave an opportunity to him to submit his defence as to why the aforesaid vehicle is not liable for confiscation under Section 46 of the Act. 14. 14. A further reading of the said order of the 3 rd respondent would show that the petitioner on being served with the show cause notice had submitted his explanation on 27.06.2016 seeking release of the vehicle on humanitarian grounds but did not produce any evidence as to he having given the subject vehicle on daily hire basis on the said day to K.Ramesh by obtaining any security. 15. The petitioner also did not place any material before the 3 rd respondent to substantiate his claim of he being eking out his livelihood by giving the subject vehicle on daily hire basis regularly and thus, not being aware of its involvement in the commission of the offence on the said date for which Crime No.102 of 2016 has been registered, so as to prove his bona fides. 16. Further, the petitioner even in the appeal filed before the 2 nd respondent authority, except claiming that on the day i.e. dt.27.02.2016, the vehicle was given to his driver for daily hire basis, ‘and I am not involved in the said crime and earlier crime case, and I am neither liquor seller nor transporter of the said liquor’, did not produce any material and sought for release of the subject vehicle by imposing some penalty on humanitarian grounds. 17. The 2 nd respondent however at the time of hearing of the appeal on 30.07.2016, which was duly attended by the petitioner, had noted that though the petitioner had feigned ignorance with regard to the illegal transportation of the contraband goods, transportation of such huge quantity of liquor illegally without having valid permission or licence from the concerned authority and selling the same at high rates in belt shops in Kollur Village could not be possible without the connivance of the petitioner and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 18. Even before this Court, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is only the owner of the vehicle and not involved in the commission of the illegal transportation of liquor, vide Crime No.102 of 2016 dt.27.02.2016 and he having given his vehicle i.e. Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 23 W 7545 to K.Ramesh on daily hire basis, no material is placed before this Court to accept the aforesaid submission of petitioner, as to on what basis the petitioner has given the subject vehicle to K.Ramesh on daily hire basis. 19. 19. Even assuming that the petitioner is eking out his livelihood by giving his vehicle on daily hire basis, he would obtain some kind of security before handing over the vehicle to the driver in the form of keeping the original driving licence and also some third party security to ensure safety of his vehicle. No such material is placed before this Court nor such a plea is taken in response to the show cause notice issued by the 3 rd respondent or in the appeal filed before the 2 nd respondent and the said authorities having failed to take note of the same. 20. The petitioner by merely claiming that he is eking out his livelihood by giving the subject vehicle on daily hire basis cannot absolve himself even though the subject vehicle being involved in the commission of an offence under the provisions of the Act for the authorities to release the vehicle of the petitioner, more so, having regard to the large consignment of liquor being transported without any valid permission or licence for being sold to belt shops in the Kollur Village. 21. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the order of the 3 rd respondent in confiscating the subject vehicle of the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 46 of the Act and the further action of the 2 nd respondent authority in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, does not suffer from any illegality, thereby calling for interference by this Court. 22. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. 23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.