Hon’ble Het Singh Yadav, J.—The petitioner has preferred this writ petition invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 3.12.2012 (Annexure 5) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 18.1.2013 (Annexure 7) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hathras.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to sell the vehicle of petitioner bearing its registration No. UP 86F-2873 by public auction.

(iii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law.

(iv) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) award the costs of the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

2. The facts giving rise to the controversy involved in this writ petition in brief are that S.H.O., Naresh Kumar Yadav, of police station-Sikandrarau, district-Hathras reduced in writing a First Information report on 12.6.2012 enumerating therein that on the date, he was on patrol duty alongwith other police personnel. When the police party arrived at Misi Mirzapur trijunction at Etah road, the S.H.O. received a tip-off that a bootlegger would come from Etah side by a vehicle No. UP 86F-2873 on which were loaded illicit liquor and intoxicating powder. Believing upon this information, the police party lay in wait watching the arrival of the vehicle. After some time, the police party noticed arrival of a vehicle from Etah side. At about 3.30 a.m. the police intercepted the vehicle. It was a Indica car bearing registration No. U.P. 86F-2873 being driven by the petitioner who was the sole occupant. On being interrogated, he disclosed his name Pappu Yadav son of Ram Prakash resident of Nagla Udhaiya, P.S.-Hasayan, District-Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras). On the vehicle being searched, it yielded 45 pouches each containing 200 ml country-made liquor from its dickey. It is further alleged that the petitioner took out a pudia in a small polythene bag from the pocket of his trouser and handed over it to the police stating that it contained 110 gms diazapam powder. The arresting officer thereafter put an option before the petitioner whether he would like to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, but he gave no choice. It is alleged that since the petitioner was found in possession of illicit country-made liquor and also intoxicating powder as above, he was apprehended and case under Section 60 of United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. IV of 1910) and also under Section 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act was registered at P.S.-Sikandrarau, District-Mahamaya Nagar (Hathras). Since, the vehicle of the petitioner was found carrying alleged illicit liquor and NDPS substance as aforementioned, therefore, the arresting officer also seized Tata Indica Car No. UP 86F-2873 of the petitioner under the provisions of U.P. Act No. IV of 1910.

3. It would appear from the record that the petitioner applied for bail and after he had been enlarged on bail, he moved an application for release of his vehicle so seized by the police. The release application was allowed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The Collector, Hathras (respondent No. 2), however, initiated proceedings for confiscation of the car of the petitioner under Section 72 of U.P. Act No. IV of 1910 and served the petitioner with a notice as envisaged under sub-section (5)(a)of the said Section. The petitioner made representation to the respondent No. 2 under sub-section (5)(a)(ii) of the Section 72. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 3.12.2012 rejected the representation of the petitioner and confiscated the vehicle