APHC010012342026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1461/2026 Between:

1.SUBHAM SHEKHAR BHOGATE,, S/O. SHEKHAR BHOGATE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O 197, BHOGTEWADI, PAWASHI, KUDAI, SINDHUDURG, MAHARASTRA.

...PETITIONER AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,A.P. - 531002

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUNAGAPAKA POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,A.P - .531033.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.JAYAPRAKASH MADASU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents especially 3rd respondent in seizing the lorry bearing No MH 48 CB 7766 in connection with the Crime No 78 of 2024 dated 06 04 2024 for the offence U/s 34AofAPExciseActAmendment No 4Act and keeping the said vehicle in their illegal custody without initiating procedural law as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release the lorry bearing No MH48 CB7766 forthwithandtopass…”

2. Sri Jaya Prakash, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the owner of lorry bearing No.MH 48 CB 7766 which was implicated in a case in Cr.No.78/2024 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

The Petitioner was not shown as an accused in that case.

3. Sri Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions submits that a case was registered and the above-mentioned vehicle was seized. The Petitioner is required to either make an application for release of the vehicle to the competent authority or await proceedings from the competent authority for confiscation of the vehicle. As per Section 46 of ‘the Act’ Respondent No.2 is the competent authority for passing of orders with regard to confiscation of the vehicle.

4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, this Court finds that the seizure of the lorry bearing No.MH 48 CB 7766 in connection with Crime No.78 of 2024 under Section 34-A of ‘the Act’ was affected without following the due procedure contemplated under ‘the Act’. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and that he has not been arrayed as an accused in the said crime. The Respondents, more particularly the Respondent No.3, have retained the vehicle in their custody without initiating proceedings before the competent authority as mandated under Section 46 of ‘the Act’. The law is well settled that once a vehicle is seized, the competent authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Superintendent of Police, is required to promptly initiate confiscation proceedings or pass appropriate orders regarding its release. In the absence of such proceedings, the continued retention of the vehicle amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and is violative of the principles of natural justice.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the Respondents in keeping the vehicle in their custody without initiating confiscation proceedings is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Respondent No.2 to forthwith release the lorry bearing No.MH 48 CB 7766 to the Petitioner, subject to the Petitioner furnishing sufficient surety and an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the competent authority or the Court in connection with the pending proceedings. It is made clear that t