Allowed

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Telangana HC22 Apr 2021WP/1509/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the seizure of his JCB vehicle under the Excise Act. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the Respondents to release the vehicle subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- and undertaking not to alter the vehicle's features pending further inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the impugned JCB vehicle subject to furnishing an FDR of Rs. 2,00,000/- and an undertaking against alienation or physical changes.

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETI TION NO: 1509 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy, S/o. Mallaiah Age.20 years, Occ Business Rr/o. H.No. 14-24t4, wardhanh'apet vlrage Jnd M";d"i w'a;;;d"t iJrrl -oljliti"'

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1, The State of Telanoana. Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building', HyderanaOl

¶11

2 Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Rural District J Deputy commissioner, prohibition and Excise Department, warangar Division. (R3 is impleaded s per C.O. dt.221412121 in lA.No. 212021 .)

¶12

...RESPONOENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High cor.t'ra"v d" pr"ur"o to issue a appropriate writ, order or orders, more particurarr! one in lre, naiur! ot writ of ,^{mandamusdecraringthe_actionof the respondents} in not reLeasin^j-tre lca vehicle bearing No. TS24B 8745 3DX xrRA BACKHoE L as iilegar andarlitiaiv ano consequently direct the respondents to release the JCB venicle ieaiing f.f o.' iSZaf a 8745 3DX XTRA BACKHOE L,

¶14

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section_ 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne [i!fii:ourt ruv U. pi"i*O tJ'f,rr", q[99ii_onto the Respondents to release the JCd vehicre bearing-r.r-"-i3iia'az+s 3DX xrRA BACKHoE L to the petitioner herein pending disposar -of tre wi[ p"tition

¶17

Gounsel for the^{petifloner:SRl.} D. pOCHAIAH

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: Gp FOR HOME

¶19

counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Gp FoR pRoHrBriloN & ExcrsE

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1^5O9 oF 202L

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed ro declarc the action of the respondents in not releasing thc vchiclc i.c., JCB vehiclc bearing registration No.TS-24-B-8745 3DX XTITA I3ACKI{OLE L seized in C.O.R.No.379 of 2O2O, as illegal and :lrbitrary, and sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the same. The offences alleged against him are under Section 27 read, witin Section 40 of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is tliat he is the registereri owner of the vehicle i.e., JCB vehicle registration No.TS-24-B,8T4S gDX X1'RA BACKFIOLE L, whicli is of rhc ycar 2019 make. He further arr submits that the 2nd respondent seized the said vehicle on the ground that vehicle is illegally transporting toddy.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle in dispute is of the year 20 19 make. [n proof of the same, he has liled copy of certificarc ol' rr:gisrratron. t3y referring the same, learned counsel for the pctit ioncr rvould submit that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- could be the reasonable amount towards security deposit for releasing of the vehiclc.

¶28

Considering the fact that rhe petitioner is only using his vehicle for business transactions for eking out his livelihood, the vehicle can be released subject to furthcr proceedings under the Excise Act, on certain terms.

¶29

The Writ Petition is^{:rc<:ordit'rgly, disposedof directing the} respondents to release tl-re^{vehicle i.e., JCB vehicleregistration} No.TS-24-8-8745 3DX XTRA^{I3ACKHOLEL subiect to the condition} of the petitioner furnishing^{F'ixedDeposit Receipt(FDR)for} Rs.2,0O,OOO/-^{(Rupees'lwo I,akhs only) in favourol the third} respondent. The^{petltioner shall also furnish an undertaking that} he will not alienate or change^{the physical features of the vehicle.} The third respondent shall^{write to the RTA authoritynot to} transfer the vehicle in lavour of any third^{party withoutclearance} from the Excise Department. Needless^to say,^{releaseof the vehicle} is subject to the orders that shall be^{passed by the third} respondent authority pursuant to the^{enquiry to be conducted} under the provisions of the Excise Act.^{No orderas to costs.}

¶30

Miscelianeous Petitrons, il any,^pending, shall^{also stand}

¶31

closed .

¶32

SD/.K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR t //TRUE COPY// $--' SECTION OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department, State of Telangana'Secretariat} Buildino. Hvderabad.

¶35

2 Filrii[iYibi' lilo Hxiise^{Superintendent, Warangal Rural District} 4 b;;|,ilil;;it.ii,rli,^{Frbr,ioition ano'excisebepartment'waranal Division}

¶36

3 onE-CC to Sri. D. Pochaiah,^Advocate IOPUC] 4 Yffi 66Ji""'cnio|. rjo.",^{i-iigh cortt to' the State of relangana lourl} 5 Two CD Copies.

PIV

HIGH COURT

DATED:22104t2021

ORDER

1 $
{
,::-
o'J 2 B APB 2021
l-..
i.

¶42

WP.No.1509 ot 2021

¶43

¶44

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶45

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy v. The State of Telangana, And Another

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

Syed Zakir Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Azher Vs The State of Telangana

Mupparapu Ngaraju Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Smt.G. Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohammed Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana