SHAIK GULAM RASOOL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 27-11-1998 and the proceedings of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise confiscating the jeep in which illicitly distilled liquor in possession of the driver of the vehicle was being transported and the 30 litres of I.D. liquor. The petitioner is the owner of Jeep.

(2.) A criminal case was instituted under Section 34 (a) and (b) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 as also under A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

(3.) Mr. Sairam Gowd, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that by reason of the said provision the right of the owner of the vehicle to ply the same as adumbrated under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution had been violated. The learned Counsel would urge that such provisions having not been existing earlier, the impugned amendment is ultra vires. The impugned order, Mr. Goud would submit, suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind. He would urge that the owners of the vehicles cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of omission and commission on the part of their servants and thus the impugned order must be held to be illegal.