SIDDIVINAYAKA WINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bank guarantee/challan of Rs. 78,953/-credited to Crime No. 648/2010-11 on the file of the S.H.O., Prohibition & Excise, Huzurnagar Police Station, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the challan.

(2.) The petitioner is a holder of A-4 licence for running retail liquor shop. When certain quantity of beer belonging to the petitioner was being transported, the same was intercepted at Gopalpuram, near Huzurnagar town and the stock was seized. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner requested for compounding the case. The petitioner's request was recommended by respondent No. 2 and accepted by respondent No. 1 vide his proceedings Cr.No.17054/2010/CPE/G2, dated 17-1-2011, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying compounding fee of Rs. 50,000/-and also payment of the value of the seized stock. The petitioner accordingly deposited the sum of Rs. 50,000/-and also Rs. 78,953/-representing the value of the seized stock through Bank challan (wrongly described as bank guarantee in the Writ Petition). The petitioner approached the respondents for return of the bank challan on the ground that once the compounding fee is levied and collected, he is not liable to pay the value of the seized stock. As the said amount has not been refunded, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri K. Lakshmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Indian Wine Corporation Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 5 ALD 232, in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the value of the stock.