Disposed

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, v. M/s Radha Iron Works

Telangana HC19 Apr 2022WA/866/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of vehicle seizure. The petitioner contended the seizure was illegal due to a chemical report showing the toddy was free from adulteration. The Court directed the respondent authorities to complete the confiscation exercise under Section 46 of the Telangana Excise Act within two weeks and permitted the petitioner to approach the c

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed. Respondents directed to pass orders under Section 46 of the Act within two weeks considering the chemical report.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7484 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

A.Srinivas, S/o Gangaram aged about 32^years, resident of D.No.2-'13511 , Kummanpally Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana,, represented by its Prl. Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad.

¶12

The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excie, Bodhan Nizamabad District

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing the vehicle Auto Trolly-TATA Motors Ltd bearing No.AP 25 Y - 0177 goods carriage vehicle under C.O.R. No.123/2015-2016 DI.22-O5-2O15 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release the vehicle Auto Trolly-TATA lVlotors Lld bearing No.AP 25 Y - 0'|.77 goods carriage vehicle forthwith.

¶15

WPMP. NO: 95s8 OF 20't6

¶16

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 3rd respondent to release the vehicle Auto Trolly-TATA Motors Ltd bearing No.AP 25 Y -0177 goods carriage vehicle forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.DURGA PRASAD

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR rit Pe nNo o 20r6

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ^petition was initially filed to declare the action of the 3.d respondent in seizing the vehicle Auto Trolly-TATA Motors Ltd bearing No.Ap 25y - O177 goods carriage vehicle under C.O.R Nol23/2O75-2O 16 dated 22.OS.2OLS, as being illegal, arbitrary with a consequential direction to the 3.d respondent to release the said vehicle.

¶23

Heard Sri K. Durga prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, leamed Government pleader for prohibition & Excise appearing for respondents and perused the record.

¶24

The petitioner contends that the respondent authorities have seized the subject vehicle on 22.05.2015 on the ground that it was carrying toddy and sugar whereupon the authorities seized the same on the opinion that the toddy being transported is adulterated toddy, is a contraband item and registered a case against four persons i.e, accused Nos. I to 4.

¶25

It is also contended that the respondent authorities upon effecting scizure of the vehicle along with toddy and sugar being carried thereon had drawn samples of toddy and sent the samc to thc chemical anal,vsis laboratory and upon the samples being

¶26

¶27

tested, a report dated 14.10.2015 was^{submitted before the} Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,^{Bodhan of Nizamabad} District, wherein it stated that the sample is^{fermentedtoddy} free from Chloral Hydrate and Dizepam.^{Sincethe chemical} analysis report furnished clearly^{indicated the toddy to be free} from any adulteration, the^{petitioner contends that the seizure} affected and COR^{proceedingsinitiated by the respondents are} illegal.

¶28

As an interim measure in the^{Writ Petition, the petitioner} sought for release of the subject^vehicle.

¶29

This Court, by interim order^{dated 28.03.2016 in WPMP} No.9558 of 2016, permitted tl.e^{petitioner to approachthe excise} authorities concerned for^release of^{his vehicle and upon the} petitioner making the said application,^{tJle respondentswere} directed to consider such^{applicationand by observing that} pendency of Writ Petition shall not^{come in tJle way of such} consideration.

¶30

Counter-affidavit on behalf of^{respondentis filed. By the} counter-affidavit, the respondents^{contend that, despite this} Court's direction, the petitioner did^{not approach the respondents} and did not make application under^{Section46 of the Telangana} Excise Act (for short the Act) for^{release of his vehicleThe}

¶31

¶32

respondents in the counter-affidavit would further contend that the concerned authority had sent a proposal to tJ e Deputy Commissioner on O l.O2.2O 16 to conliscate the subject vehicle and tJle confiscation orders are to be passed in ttre matter.

¶33

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government^pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that he is in receipt of written instructions dated 08.o6.2 o22 from tJ.e 3.a respondent wherein it is stated that the subject vehicle is still in the possession of the authorities and the petitioner did not Iile any application under Section 46 of the Act seeking release of the vehicle

¶34

Insofar as the confiscation proceedings alte concerned, learned Covernment pleader for prohibition & Excise submits that no confiscation orders are passed by the authorities, due to pendency of the Writ petition before this Court.

¶35

Learned Government pleader for prohibition & Excise would submit that, if this Court v/ere to direct the respondents to pass orders under Section 46 of the Act, the authorities shall do so by considering the material on record and also by following due process of lau'. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has no objection to thc above course of action being adopted by this Court.

¶36

¶37

Having regard to the above and considering the fact that^the authorities have not passed confiscation proceedings, in spite^of the COR proceedings registered against t1.e petitioner are^pending for a period of more than six years, this Court is of the^{view the} Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the^respondentto complete the entire exercise of^{passing ordersunderSection46 of} the Act, within a period of two weeks from the^{date of receipt of a} copy of this order. It is made clear^{that while passing the orders} under Section 46 of the Act, the^{respondent authoritiesshalltake} into consideration, the chemical analysis^{report as furnished to it} in relation to the samples drawn and also by^{following due process} of [aw. Upon the concerned aut]rorities^{passing orders in terms of} Section 46 of the Act, the^{petitioner ispermittedtoavail} appropriate remedy before the competent authority,^{ifhe is} aggrieved thereby.

¶38

I 1. Subject to the above direction, the^{Writ Petitionis disposed}

¶39

of. No order as to costs.

¶40

t2 Misccllaneous petitions, if any,^pending in^{this writ petition} sh:rLl stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶41

SD/.T.KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR T\ //TRUE COPY// SECTIOTTOFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 The Prl. Secretary,^{Prohibition and Excise Department, State of Telangana'} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶44

@1"(^{- -}

¶45

The Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excie, Bodhan Nizamabad District. 4. Two CCs to the GP for Prohibition & Excise, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

¶46

5 One CC to SRI K.DURGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two C-D. Copies One Spare Copy. MRC -? GJP nI/

¶47

HIGH COURT DATED:3010612022

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.7484 of 2016

¶50

1HE STA 16:
c
{i
c r>
L.)
0 s Aljs 2022
.o
ci: PAiCH

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, v. M/s Radha Iron Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, v. M/s Radha Iron Works

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

K.Hanumantha Rao, S/ o. Sri Ram Murthy, Vs The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad (for the State

Anugu Rahul Kumar Reddy, Rr Dist Vs Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, Hyd and 3 Others

P Renukadevi, R.R.Dist Vs the Ap Social Welfare Residential Educ. Ins. Society, Hyd.

Chief M.D., Tsspdcl., Hyd and 2 Others Vs M/S. Jeevaka Industries Ltd., Medak Dist and Ano

C and M.D., Ts Spdcl, Hyd. and 2 Ors. Vs M/S. Navdurga Billets (P) Ltd. and Ano.

Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., Vs M/s G.S.Oils Limited