Disposed

Basavalinga Reddy, v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise

Telangana HC1 Mar 2005WP/1862/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the non-release of seized liquor stock. The court disposed of the petition at the stage of admission, directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for release through an appropriate application rather than via a writ.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of at the stage of admission; petitioner directed to approach competent authority for stock release.

Basavalinga Reddy, Vs Commissioner… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA WRIT PETITION NO : 1862 of 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Basavalinga Reddy, s/o Sathi Reddy, R/o Ballary, Karnataka State.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, A.P. at Hyderabad.

¶11

2 Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Anantapur.

¶12

3 Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Rayadurg, Anantapur District.

¶13

.....RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in registering Crime No. Cr.No. 145/2001-2002 , seizing the stock ie., 17 Cartons ie., 288 bottles of liquor and refusal to release the stock as illegal and consequently direct the Respondents to release the said stock to the Petitioner and to pass necessary order or orders

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENUGOPALA RAO PASNOORU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

Heard both sides. Perused the material placed before me.

¶19

The petitioner, admittedly, is a border crosser along with a load of whisky bottles in a lorry. The stock was seized by the competent authority, and in spite of representation, the same was not released. Hence the petitioner filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents for release of the stock in question.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner contents that the offence is a compoundable offence and hence there is no justifiable reason for the respondents in not releasing the stocks though the vehicle was already released.

¶21

It is not in dispute that crossing border through permit cannot transgress the frontiers of the state where only the stocks can be disposed of. However, there is an efficacious remedy available for the petitioner to approach the competent authority by making an application.

¶22

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with an appropriate application for release of

¶23

the stock in question. If such an application, if any, being made by the petitioner in that regard, the respondents shall consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders by following due process of law as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs.

¶25

01-03-2005

¶26

Note:

¶27

Issue CC by Two days B/O

¶28

Kvsn

¶29

¶30

1 Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, A.P. at Hyderabad.

¶31

2 Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Anantapur.

¶32

3 Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Rayadurg, Anantapur District.

¶33

4 Two copies to The GP for Excise, HIGH COURT OF AP, Hyderabad.

¶34

5 Two CD copies.

Basavalinga Reddy, v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavalinga Reddy, v. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varada Daliguruvulu, Vs Teh Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Lella Ratna Reddy S/o Narapa Reddy Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Smt.M.Rama Lakshmi, Vs The Joint Collector, Srikakulam

Smt. Dasari Sarojini, Vs The Chief General Manager

M/s Bhargavi Bar and Restaurant, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.V. Krishnam Raju Vs The Superintending Engineer