IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 18749 OF 2091

Between:

R. Ashok, S/o G. Ramaiah, aged about 37 Years, R/o Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural-562129, Karnataka State. at Handrahalli, Budgere

...PETITIONER

AND

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Home Department [Prohibition and Excise], AP Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District.
• 2. The Commissioner of Special Enforcement Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. Bureau A.P., cum
• 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapur.
• 4. The Station House Officer, SEE Police Station, Hindupur, Ananthapur District.

...RESPONDENTS

of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may

be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^^ respondent and respondent's proceedings of order in Cr.No.1852/2021/SEB/C, dated 04.08.2021, directing to release the vehicle i.e. Bolero Pickup CBC 2WD BS-IV from the hands of the 4'*^ respondent under vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-53-AA-1284. nd set aside the 2

lA NO: ¹ OF 2021

Petition under Section ¹⁵¹ CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the vehicle Bolero Pickup CBC 2WD — BS-IV bearing Regn No. KA-53-AA-1284, as interim custody on any conditions as imposed by this Hon'ble Court for granting such interim custody in favour of the petitioner towards the vehicle bearing Regn No. KA-53-AA-1284, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

lA NO: ³ OF 2021

Between:

The Station House Officer, SEB Police Station, Hindupur, Ananthapur District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. R. Ashok, S/o G. Ramaiah, aged about 37 Years, R/o at Handrahalli, Budgere Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural-562129, Karnataka State.

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Home Department [Prohibition and Excise], AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

• 3. The Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau A.P., cum Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
• 4. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapur.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 02-09-2021 passed in WP. 18749/2021 and dismiss the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. VASU SEKHAR PERAVALI

Counsel for the Respondents R1 & R2: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

Counsel for the Respondents R3 TO R4 : GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following Order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.18749 of 2021

R. Ashok, S/o G. Ramaiah, aged about 37 years, R/at Handrahalli, Budgere Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural – 562129, Karnataka State.

... Petitioner

$\ldots \ldots 1)$

Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department (Prohibition and Excise), AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others. ... Respondents

Counsels for the petitioner	: Sri Vasu Sekhar Peravalı
Counsel for respondents	: GP for Prohibition and Excise

ORDER

Impugning the proceedings, dated 04.08.2021 passed in Cr.No.1852/2021/SEB/C, by respondent No.2, Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, confirming the confiscation order, dated 27.03.2021 passed by respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District, in Rc.No.419/SEB/2020, the above writ petition is filed.

Respondent No.3 passed orders confiscating Bolero Pickup CBC 2WD-BS-IV bearing registration No.KA 53 AA 1284, in connection with crime No.221 of 2020, registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, on the ground of its involvement in illegal transportation of liquor bottles. 2.

This Court by order dated 05.11.2021, granted interim direction for release of the subject vehicle. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No.2 does not set out any reasons much less valid reasons. The authority failed to consider the grounds urged by the petitioner. He submits that in similar cases, the appellate authority has been releasing the vehicles subject to payment of fine. The authority ought to have followed the same. 4.

5. As seen from the order, dated 04.08.2021 the reasons stated therein are not adequate.

SRSJ W.P.No.18749 of 2021

In S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India^ the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the judgment in Siemens Engineering & 6. Manufacturing Co. of India Limited case, held as follows;

"It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then along administrative authorities and tribunals, exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as follows at para 35:

"Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by its while exercising quasi-judicial functions.

^{^} 1990(4) see 594

would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations , referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of ^a Court law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater-in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge".

7. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the authority did not consider the points urged by the petitioner. Being the appellate authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pass a reasoned order. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 04.08.2021 passed by respondent No.2.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the order, dated 04.08.2021 passed in Cr.No.1852/2021/SEB/C by respondent No.2. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to reconsider and pass fresh order with reasons. The authority shall also issue notice to the petitioner and afford opportunity of hearing at the time of enquiry.

The above exercise will be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- ^U SRI DEVI

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

• To,
  • by its PrI. Secretary, Home and Excise], AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. Department [Prohibition Guntur District.
  • 2. The Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau A.P., Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. cum
  • 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuram District, Ananthapur.
  • 4. The Station House Officer, SEB Police Station, Hindupur, Ananthapur District.

• 5. One CC to SRI. VASU SEKHAR PERAVALl, Advocate [OPUC]
• 6. Two CCS to GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
• 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
• 8. Three CD Copies

DPBR

PRK

HIGH COURT DATED:03/05/2024

ORDER

WP.No.18749 of 2021

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS