Partly allowed

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmad v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021WP/30741/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging an excise order. It held the fine imposed by the Commissioner was on the higher side due to lack of reasoning regarding the vehicle owner's lack of knowledge and the nature of seized agricultural produce. The court modified the fine from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The vehicle was directed to be released upon payment of the reduced fine.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was partly allowed; the fine was reduced from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000, and the vehicle was directed to be released upon payment of the reduced fine.

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmad Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

H'GH COURI FOR THE SI 6o;;,"i 6"I5,3j lf,:3#"",flTf Ar HvDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE THI'

¶3

,worn_ortll:T[SrmlNoIyDoENcEEMBER

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRI TPE TITI ONN O:3 0741 0 F 2021

¶8

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmar tn. i.i,,-v'Etilt;1ff ifT?1i:i%#R[1 [i$f,i5;12 +?,ililfif,:] 3& o#;il,?:

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

I!:^{Sl:tp of Tetangana, rep. by its principat} Secretary, Excise Depa(ment, Secretariat, Hvderabad

¶12

2.1l The Commissioner of prohibrtion and Excise, at Nampally, Hyderabad

¶13

1l The Deputy Commissioner ot proiriuition-a-ni Eiclle,'tlirnauoobnagar, It4ahaboobnaqar District.

¶14

H-ouse Officer,^prohibition and Excise, Tetkapa[y, t\rlahaboobnagar Iffir:.|:,,..

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia 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 A,4andamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order no. cR.No.16'13/2021tcpElExlD1, dated. 26.10.2021 partiaily modifying the order passed by the 3rd respondent in cr No.B3/5 13l2o2o dated. 29.09.2020 by imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,0001 for release of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP 21 x 4167 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.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 respondent in impugned order CR.No.161312021lCPElEXlD| , dated. 26.10.2021 by accepting 20 percent of the amount from out fine amount Rs.3,00,000/- including release the petitioner lorry vehicle bearing no,AP 21 X 4167 pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLtr^{SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN}

¶23

\,RIT PETITION^{I.{o.30 14101'2021}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Mr. Laxmaiah^{Kanchani,learnedcounsel for the petitioner} and the learned Government^{Pleaderfor Prohibition & f]xcise appearir,g} on behalf of the respondents,^{and wi'-h their consent, this rvrit petitionis} disposed of at the admission stage itse:lf.

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the order^clated 26JA,2021 passed b5' respondent No.2 moditying the confiscation order dated 29.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 by imposing a tlne ,rf Rs.3,00,000/- lor release of the vehi:le bearing registraiion No.AP 2lX 41 67 perrnanentlv

¶27

A perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No,.1 has registered a case vide COR No.170 o12020, dated 07.07.2020 againsr tire accused therein ibl the oft'ences under Section - 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section - 3a (e) ofthe Telangana State Excise Act, 1968.

¶28

The subject vehicle v2., Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing registration No.AP 21X 4167 , was seized in connection with the aforesaid crime. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has passed confiscation order vide proceedings in Cr.No.B3l51312020, dated 29.09.2020. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the p,.:titioner herein, orvner olthe sr.rb.ject vehicie, filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who in turn passed the impugned order dated 26.10,2021 vide Cr.No. l6t3lz)ZUCpElEx/Dl.

¶29

¶30

KL.J llt. P.No.30741 o[2021

¶31

nlodi8/ing the said confiscation order dated 29.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 to the extent of imposing a fine of Rs.3,00,000/_ (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) on the petitioner herein and ordered for release of the subject vehicle permanently on payment of the said fine amount with a warning that in case of any subsequent offence, no leniency would be shown.

¶32

Perusal ol the record in COR No.170 of 2020, confiscation order dated 29.09.2020 and the irnpugned order dated 26.10.2021^would reveal that 9840 kilograms of^{blackjaggery and 60 kilograrns of} Navasagarar.n^{wereseized from the subject vehicle'Thesubject vehicle} was seized in connection with^{COR No.l70 of 2020and confiscation} order dated 29.0g.2020^{was passed' The petitioner herein filedan appeal} challenging the^{confiscationorder dated29.o9.2020 on several grounds'} It is specifically^{contended by the petitionerherein that he had purchased} tl.re subject^{vehicle by obtainingloan and that he has engaged a driver'} The^j aggery is^{an agricultural produceand itis not meant for} manufacturing^{of I.D. Liquor. The said contentions werenot considered} by respondent^{No 2. However,he has imposedpenalty of Rs'3'00 lakhs} onthegroundthatitwouldmeettheendsofjustice.RespondentNo.2 has not^{given any reasons while irnposing the saidfine amount'}

¶33

6.J.hereistroconsiderationofmaterialseized,particularsof vehicle including^{its nature and nature of the rnaterialseizedetc'} Respondent^{No.2has not considerednature of allegationsetc' in COR} No.170 of 2020^{and release ofjaggery seized' The petitioner is owner of}

¶34

¶35

N!, J ll P.ito.3a71l tl 2a) I

¶36

the subject vehicle and not an accused in COR No.170 of 2020. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the contention of the petitioner that he has no knowledge of the offence and his driver. is an accused. Subject vehicle has not involved in any other crime except rhe present COR No.170 of 2020. According to this Court, the impugned order is not a reasoned order.

¶37

Perusal of the certificate of registration woLrlcl r.e'eal that the subject vehicle is of 2006 model and it is a goods ,.,ehicle. With,rut considering tl.re said facts, respondent No.2 has imposed a ,ine of Rs.3,00 lakhs. Therefore, this Cou( is of the considered view thar imposition of fine of Rs.3.00 lakhs by respondent No.2 is on higher side and an amori.t of Rs.i.00 lakh would be just and reasonable. Thus, the impugned orccr is modified to the said extent. Accordingly, responclent No.3 is clirecrc.d to release the subject vehicle on payment of fine amount o1. Rs. 1,00,00()/_ (Rupees One Lakli Only). However, the other conditions imposed by respondent No.2 in the impugned order stand unaltered.

¶38

The presenr Writ petition i:; accordingl,v allor.r,ecl in part to rhe extent indicated above. However, there shall be no orcler as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, penciing in the u rit petition shall stand closed

¶40

SD/.N,CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGI.STRAR

¶41

//TRUE I.OPYII .\t)

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To, SECTION OFFICER 1 Il!"?:i:['' secretary, Excise Department, state of reransana, secretariat, 2 The Commissioner of prohibition and llxcise, at Nampally, Hyderabad

¶44

Il^g Q"pqty^{Commissioner of prohibition} and Excise, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶45

The station House officer, prohibition and Excise, Terkapaily, Ivrahaboobnagar District

¶46

E One CC to Sri Laxmaiah Kanchani. Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CCs to GP for Prohibition & Excise, High bourt fbr the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies B. One Spare Copy CHR MMA

-+--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1311212021

t I

ORDER

W.P.No.30741 af 2021

--'t"; ;l t 'li t1
'
/.' J
a')
I 1r sit?0?1 -!
n
I.n:

¶55

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

¶56

*
\6 \ \1/

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmad v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ghouse Ahmad v. The State of Telangana

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

Pasya Anjaneyulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Mr. Gajula Chaithanya Vs The State of Telangana and another