Disposed

Susmitha Johnson v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023WP/11488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus for the prompt disposal of a revisionary application filed against an order dismissing a vehicle confiscation. The Court directed the revenue authority to conclude the pending revision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision filed against the order dated 27.03.2023 within two months from today.

Susmitha Johnson Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11,l88 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Susmitha Johnson, s/o Joseph Kamalhasan, aged about 28^years, r/o H.No. 4-41-1-D, Tadipatri village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue^(Excise Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, of Proh. and Excise Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, of Proh. and Excise, Warangal Division.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Kuravi Police Station, Mahabubabad 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 1st respondent in not^passing any orders in the application filed along with Revision on 12-4-2023 against the orders passed 2nd respondent dt.27-3-2l23 in Cr.No. OslzO23lCPElExlDl, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^{be pleased to direct} the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein not to seize the Lorry^bearing Reg.No. AP-02-TE-4673 seized in FIR No.^12512019 on the file^{of the 4th} respondent, till disposal of the Revision before^{the 1st respondent, disposal of the} main Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl.^{S PRASAD BABU} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^{to 3 : GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE} Counsel forthe Respondent No.4^{: GP FOR HOME} The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PEI'ITION No.114 88 of 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This writ petition is fllecl seeking to declare the actiolt of respondent No.l in not passins any orders in the application filed along with the rcvision on 12.04.2023 against the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 2'7.03.2023 in Cr.No.05/2023lCPF/ExDl, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶23

The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-TII-4673. While the said vehicle was engaged for transporting of black jaggery on payment of hire charges, the same was intercepted and confiscated by respondent No.4 and a case was registercd in Crime No. 125 of 201 9 for the offence under Section 34(e) o1'the Excise Act. Questioning the confiscation ol'his vehicle, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of^prohibition and Excise and the same has been dismissed by ordcr dated27.03.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of the appellatc authority, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 64 of thc Excise Act. It is the case of the

¶24

)

¶25

¶26

petitioner that pending decision by the revisional authority, when the vehicle was not released, he is constrained to file the^present writ petition and this Court, on 24.04.2023, passed status quo orders.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner has contended that even though the revision has been filed on 12.04.2023, so far, the revisional authority has not disposed of the same, and thereby, the petitioner is put to great hardship and loss as he is solely . depending upon the income derived from plying of the vehicle. Therefore, he seeks direction to respondent No.l to dispose o[the revision expeditiously.

¶28

The leamed Government Pleader for Excise submits that the vehicle was confiscated as the sarne was involved in an excise offence, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release of vehicle pending adjudication of revision by respondent No.1.

¶29

In view of the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 27.03.2023 passed

¶30

¶31

by the 2"d responden t/Contmrssioner of Prohibition and Excise,

¶32

within a period of two months fiom today. No order as to costs.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/- C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( / lr 5

¶37

SECfION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise Department), State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

The Commissioner, of Prohibition and Excise Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶41

The Deputy Commissioner, of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division.

¶42

The Station House Officer, Kuravi Police Station, Mahabubabad District.

¶43

One CC to SRl. S PRASAD BABU, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶46

Two CD Copies

GJP

(/eL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910612023

ORDER

(: o . l ilE s,'e 14:
'?
'-) o
t) 3 0 Jr!il 20n
o.
'- \a---- --:. . " '

¶54

WP.No.11488 of 2023

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

0--
4;ve
29t" 6;r

Susmitha Johnson v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susmitha Johnson 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

M. Laxminarsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Banothu Shanker Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Papasani Giridhar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana

R Chinna Peddanna Vs K.Ravinder Rao

Shaik Zakir Vs The State of Telangana