Partly allowed

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021WP/30718/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition partly at the stage of admission. The court reduced the fine imposed under the Telangana Prohibition Act from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 1 lakh, stating the original amount was excessive and the order was unreasoned, directing release of the seized vehicle upon payment of the reduced fine.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order modifying the confiscation order is modified to the extent of imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-; the vehicle is directed to be released upon payment of this amount. No order as to c

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30718 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud, S/o. P. Babaiah, Age 35 years, Occ: Owner of the Maruthi Suzuki.D.ezire Car bealrng.No.TS 31 D 5923,-R/o. H.ruo.B - 79, Telkapally Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PET|T|ONER

¶10

'l . The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise irlahaboobnaga r,

¶13

Mahaboobnagar District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Telkapally, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia 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. one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order CR.No.161412021lCPElExlD1 , dated 2611012021 parlially modifying the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Cr No.B3/513/2020 dated. 2910912020 by imposing a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- for release of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. TS 31 D 5823 permanently, though they said vehicle is old as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust also Article 14, 19, 21 and 300 - A of the Constitution of lndia and set aside. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

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 the 2nd respondent herein to modify the order^passed by the 2nd respondentⁱⁿ impugned order CR.No.161312021lCPElEXlD1 , dated. 2611012021 by accepting 2Opercentage of the amount from out fine amount Rs.3,00,000^{including release the} petitioner Maruthi Suauio Dezire Car bearing No.TS 31 D 5823 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^{PROHIBITION& EXCISE}

¶20

The Court at the stage of admission the^{following:ORDER}

¶21

HON,BLE SRI^{JUST1CE K' LAKSHMI\N}

¶22

\,RIT PETITI ON^{No.30 718 0F 2021}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

HeardMr.LaxmaiahKanchani,leamedcounselforthepetitioner and the leamed^{Government Pleadelfor Prohibition & Excise appearing} on behalf of the^{respondents, and with their consent, this writ petitionis} disposed of at the^{admissionstage itself.}

¶25

This writ^{petition is filed challengingthe order dated} 26.10.2021 passecl by^{respondentNo.2 modifying the confiscationorder} dated 29.09.2020^{passed by respondent No.3 by imposing a llne of} Rs.5,00,000/- tbr release^{of the vehicle bearing registration No'fS 31D} 5823 permanentll'.

¶26

A perusal of the^{record would reveal thatrespondentNo'4 has} registered a case vide COR^{No.i70 of 2020,dated 07.07.2020against the} accused therein for the^{offences under Section- 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of} Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section^{- 34 (e) oftheTelanganaStateExcise} Act, i968.

¶27

The subject vehicle v2.,^{MaruthiSuzuki Dezire Car bearing} registration No.TS 31D 5823^{was seizedin connection with the atblesaid} crime. Thereafter, respondent^{No,3 has passed contlscation order vide} proceedings in Cr.No.B3l5 1312020. dated^{29.09.2020. Feelingaggrieved} by the same, the petitioner herein,^{otvner of the subject vehicle'fileclan} appeal before respondent No.2, who ir,^{turnpassedthe impugnedorder} dated 26. 1 0.202 1 vide Cr.No.¹ 6 I 4,'2021^I CPElExlDl,^{rnodifyingthe said}

¶28

¶29

ryp.u...toz ta .r{iil

¶30

confiscafion order dated 29.0g.2020passed by respondent No.3 to the extent of irnposing a ftne of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on the petitioner herein and ordered for release of the subject vehicre perrnanently on payrnent of the said fine amount with a waming that in case of any subsequent offence, no len iency would be shown.

¶31

Pelusal of the record in COR No. 170 of 2020. confiscation order dated 29.09.2020 and the impugned order dated 26.10.2021 would reveal that 240 l<ilograrns of black^jaggery and 20 kilograms of Navasagararn were seized from the subject vehicle. The subject vehicle was seized in comection with COR No.170 of 2020 and confiscation order dated 29.09.2020 was passed. The petitioner helein filed an^appeal challenging the confiscation order^{dated29.09.2020on severalgrounds.} It is specifically contended by the^petitioner herein^{that he had purchased} the subject vehicle by obtaining^{loan and that he has engaged a driver.} Thc jaggery is an agricultural^{produce and itis not rneantfbr} manufacturing of LD. Liquor.^{The said contentionswere not considered} by respondent No.2. However,^{he has imposedpenalty of Rs'5'00 lakhs} on the ground that it^{wouldmeetthe ends of justice. Respondent No.2} has not given any leasons^{while imposing the saidfine amount.}

¶32

There is no consideration^{of materialseized, particulars of} vehicle including its nature^{and nature of the materialseizedetc.} Respondent No.2 has^{not considerednature of allegationsetc. in COR} No.170 of2020 and^{release ofjaggeryseized.The petitioner is owner of} the subject vehicle^{and arraigned as accused No.3 in COR No'170 of}

¶33

i\L,J lV.P,No.30?^{18 r.rJ?021}

¶34

Subject^{vehiclehas not involvedin any other crimeexcept the} present COR^{No.170of 2020'Accordingto this Court' the impugned} order is not^{a reasoned order.}

¶35

Perusal of^{the certificate of registrationwould revealthat the} subjectvehicleisof2020modelanditismotorvehicle.Thecostofthe new vehicle is around^{Rs.7.50lakhs. without considering the saidtacts,} respondent No.2^{has imposeda fine of Rs.5.00lakhs. 'lherefore, this} court is of the considered^{view that imposition of fine of Rs.5.00 lakhs} by respondent No.2 is on^{higher side and an amount o1'Rs'l'00 lakh} would be^just and reasonable.^{Thus, the impugned order is moditledto} the said extent. Accordingly,^{respondent No.3 is directed to release the} subject vehicle on payment of^{fine amountof Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One} Lakh Only). However, the other^{conditionsimposedby respondent No.2} in the impugned order stand unaltered.

¶36

The present Writ Petition is accordingly^{allowed in paft to the} extent indicated above. However, tnere^{shallbe no orderas to costs'}

¶37

As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending in the tvrit}

¶38

petition shall stand c losed.

¶39

To,

¶40

1 The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶41

2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, at Nampally, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶42

4 The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Telkapally,^{I,4ahaboobnagar} District

¶43

E One CC to Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

6 Two CCs to GP for Prohibition & Excise, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies 8. One Spare Copy CHR 7^MMA i1.--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311212021

ORDER

W.P.No.30718 of 2021

1 e Sl4, !
i) 1E [rt?t]?l .t:
\i
a:)

¶50

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

PV-
\5 \tv
o

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy And 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Chilkuri Arjun Reddy Vs Sabayath Rajitha , Rajamani

Smt. G. Alivelamma , Golla Shyamala Vs E. Rajini Babu

Yerram Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmad Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Gajula Chaithanya Vs The State of Telangana and another