JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 10.12.2003, passed in W.P.No.2695 of 1997 by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

2. The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the respondent herein, who was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AHK 9949 (Mini Lorry of Nissan make). The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Warangal while conducting inspection on 23.07.1995 had found the vehicle in question transporting 990 litres of I.D. liquor in 11 rubber tubes. The Prohibition and Excise Officer apprehended the driver of the vehicle, namely A.Dharma Rao and other persons and seized the vehicle. Proceedings were initiated under the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short, “the Excise Act”) for confiscation of the vehicle and a show cause notice, dated 05.08.1995 was issued to the person from whom the vehicle was seized under Section 46-A of the Excise Act. It is an undisputed fact that though notice was not issued to the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the respondent herein, he did file a detailed reply on 15.08.1995, which is on record and thereafter an order, dated 27.09.1995, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division/appellant No.2 herein in exercise of powers conferred under Section 46 read with Section 45 of the Excise Act confiscating the Mini Lorry bearing No.AHK 9949 and also to destroy the contraband of I.D. liquor. Against the aforesaid order, dated 27.09.1995, the owner of the vehicle preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise/appellant No.3 herein, and the appellant No.3 herein dismissed the said Appeal by order dated 16.11.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition keeping in view the Judgment delivered in the case of P.Gokul Anand v. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl) 201 (AP) (FB) on the ground that no notice was given to the owner of the vehicle in question.

3. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise has vehemently argued before this Court that Section 46-A of the Excise Act provides for notice to the person from whom the property was seized and a show cause notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle in question and the respondent/writ petitioner has also submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the writ petition could not have been allowed on the ground that the notice was not issued to the owner of the vehicle. It is also stated that against the Judgment delivered in the case of P.Gokul Anand (supra), an SLP has been preferred and in the other writ petitions, which have been allowed on the basis of the aforesaid Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted stay in those matters. However, while the present case was being argued before this Court on the ground of mens rea on the basis of which a Full Bench of this Court has delivered the Judgment, a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader, delivered in the case of Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, A.P., v. Sharana Gouda, (2007) 6 SCC 42 and the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that in similar circumstances, SLP preferred by the State Government has been allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.

5. The relevant statutory provisions as contained in Sections 45 and 46-A of the Excise Act are reproduced as under:-

“45. Liability of certain things to confiscation:-Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, the following things shall be liable to c