Allowed

Smt Amara Malleswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jul 2024WP/3146/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the confirmation of a confiscation order for a vehicle seized during excise proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order due to inadequate reasons and lack of hearing, remanding the matter for a fresh reasoned decision.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 24-11-2020 set aside; matter remitted to Respondent No.2 to reconsider and pass fresh reasoned order with hearing opportunity within three months.

Smt Amara Malleswari Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3146 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Amara Malleswari, W/o Suryaprakash Rao, R/o Kunchanapalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Amaravati.

¶12

The Commissioner Special Enforcement Bureau, Amaravathi.

¶13

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Guntur

¶14

The Station House Officer, Nallapadu P.S.

¶15

M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager MG Road, Chandra Mouli Puram, Shram Nagar, Viiayawada, Andhra^Pradesh 520010.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to the Proceedings conducted by Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau/Respondent No.2 and declaring the action of^{theCommissionerof} Special Enforcement Bureau in dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner by confirming Confiscation Order dated 17-10-2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise as Illegal, Arbitrary, Contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Violative of the Principles and

¶18

^ Rules of Natural Justice which curtailed the petitioner's Rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and Consequently to quash the impugned Order dated 24-11-2020 of Commissioner Special Enforcement Bureau and direct Respondents to release petitioner's vehible

¶19

V, Ashok Leyland Lorry Bearing No. AP 39 TF 4334 and grant interim custody to her during the pendency of the Trial in Crime No.^6.17of2020 in the interest of Justice and pass such other Order or Orders, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

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 direct Respondents to release my vehicle Lorry Bearing no. AP 39 TF 434 and grant interim custody to me during the pendency of this case before this Hon'ble court.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRUDVI RAJU MUDUNURI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIBITION^EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.4:GP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI C. PRAKASH REDDY

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

i3r

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.3146 OF 2021

¶30

Smt. Amara Malleswari, W/o Suryaprakash Rao, R/o Kunchanapalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District.

¶31

Versus

¶32

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and^fourothers. ... Respondents

¶33

Counsels for the petitioner : Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri Counsel for respondents ; GP for Prohibition & Excise

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following^relief:

¶36

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to the proceedings conducted by Commissioner^of Special Enforcement Bureau/Respondent No.2 and declare^the action of the Commissioner of Special enforcement Bureau in dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner by confirming confiscation order dated 17.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, as illegal and arbitrary...”

¶37

The petitioner’s vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP 39^TF4334 was seized in connection with the illegal transportation^ofcontraband and confiscation proceedings vide Rc.No.234/2020/BI, dated

¶38

Page 2 of 4 SRS,J W.P.No.3146 2021

¶39

17.10.2020 were passed. The Appellate authority, confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,^Guntur. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent^No.2vide Crime No.516/2020/SEC/C1 dated 24.11.2020. The Appellate authority confirmed the confiscation order.

¶40

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶41

Learned counsel on either side submitted that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.2373 of 2021, this Court, by placing reliance on the judgment reported in S.N.Mukherjee^vs.Unionof India^ set aside the order of the appellate authority, on the ground that no valid reasons were set out by the learned Commissioner.

¶42

Case at hand, as seen from the order dated 24.11.2020,^the reasons assigned, in the order are not adequate. In fact, the points raised by the petitioner were not considered. Being the Appellate authority, it is the bounden duty of the authority to pass a reasoned order. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to^setasidethe order dated 24.11.2020.

¶43

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting^asidethe order, dated 24.11.2020 passed in Cr.No.516/2020/SEB/C1 by

¶44

^ 1990 (4) see 594

¶45

Page 3 of 4

¶46

SRSJ W.P.No.3146 2021

¶47

I !■

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶53

//TRUE COPY//
•ft:
'k: y.;0'\c
To, ■'i

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

Department, State of Andhra^Pradesh,

¶56

The PnRbtpal/s^pfetary, Secretariat, Amaravati.

¶57

The Commissioner Special Enforcement Bureau, Amaravathi

¶58

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Guntur

¶59

The Station House Officer, Nallapadu P.S., Guntur.

¶60

M/s. Branch Manager, Sundaram Finance Ltd.,MG Road,^Chandra Mouli Puram, Sriram Nagar, Viiayawada, Andhra Pradesh^520010.

¶61

One CC to Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri C. Prakash Reddy, Advocate[OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP for Prohibition Excise, High Court^{of AndhraPradesh.}

¶64

[OUT]

¶65

Two Cc’s to GP for Home, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 10. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3146 of 2021

X 0 3AUGM'' Current Section

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Smt Amara Malleswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Amara Malleswari v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munaga Srikanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satyanarayana Senapathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Cheekatla Venkatrao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Pallaki, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandaru Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Asodi Venkateswara Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh