T. N. C. RANGA RAJAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks release of Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No. A 11 C 753. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the vehicle and he had given the same to his friend Sri B. Subhodh reddy for attending a marriage. Subsequently, he came to know that Subodh reddy had been arrested for an offence under the Prohibition Act and the vehicle has been seized on 26-1-1996. He states that he made a request to the Prohibition and Excise Inspector to return the vehicle to him as he is the owner and he was not connected with the offence, but he was informed that it was not possible as there is no provision either under the Prohibition Act or in the Excise Act for interim custody of the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings. He, therefore, filed this writ petition on 14-3-1996 seeking the release of the vehicle. An Additional affidavit has now been filed stating that in response to a written application dated 18-3-1996, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 23-3-1996 rejecting his application. It is, therefore, stated that even the alternative remedy has been exhausted and, therefore, a direction should be given for the release of the vehicle.

( 2 ) WHEN this writ petition came up for hearing along with similar cases, the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition submitted that writ petitions for release of vehicles seized under the Prohibition Act, were not maintainable. He took me through the provisions of the Act and pointed out that in October, 1995 there has been an amendment to S. 13 bringing it on a par with the provisions of S. 46 of the A. P. Excise Act with the result that the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition had the exclusive power to have custody and to order confiscation of vehicles involved in the prohibition offences. He also submitted that inasmuch as S. 13-E, analogous to S. 46-E of the Excise Act, barred the jurisdiction of the Courts with reference to the release of vehicles and S. 13 (6) conferred powers of a Civil Court on the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition, he alone had the power to release the vehicle. In the alternative, it was submitted that the power to confiscate carried with it the incidental or ancilliary power to grant interim custody pending confiscation proceedings, and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in I. T. O. v. Mohd. Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are already decisions of this Court holding that the writ petition alone is maintainable, as the statute has not specifically conferred any power on the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition to grant interim custody of vehicles pending confiscation proceedings. It was also submitted that even if it was assumed that an alternative remedy was available, it was not adequate as the facts of this case itself disclose as there was complete reluctance on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to release the vehicle and there is no application of mind to the relevant facts such as the claim of the petitioner that he was not involved in any prohibition offence. The learned Government Pleader submitted that according to the latest decision of the Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 191 of 1996, it is necessary that the petitioner should move the competent authority before he could come to the High Court by way of a writ petition and if at all there is any grievance about the administrative delays, he would advise the department to stream line the procedure in accordance with any guidelines the Court may lay down.

( 4 ) SECTION 13 of the Prohibition Act, as it stood originally, provided for confiscation by the Court after the trial for the prohibition offence. At that stage, applications were being made to the Magistrate for the interim release of the vehicle. The department resisted these applications and the matter came up by way of a criminal petition before R. M. Bapat J. the decision dated 25-7-95 in J. Palnitker v. State of A. P. , 1995 (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document