Gunda Srinivas v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Jun 2023WP/1815/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the confiscation of jaggery and a vehicle. Holding that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy of revision under Section 64 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, the Court did not examine the merits of the matter but directed the petitioner to approach the Principal Secretary to file a revision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gunda Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1815 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Q-uq!a-Qr!1ivqs,^{S/o. Ramulu, Age.47 Years, Occ. Petty Businessand ownerof TS} 29 TA 6518, FUo. Velugupalle Village, Thungathurthy Mdndal, Suryapet District

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 ]he State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Excise '; Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Suryapet.

¶14

The Station House Officer. Prohibition and Excise Station, Thungathurthy, Suryapet District.

¶15

The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Telangana, at Hyderabad

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pteased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in Cr. No. 304/202218, dated 22l0gtZO2Z and confirmed by the respondent No 4 authority in Cr. No. 2496t2022tcpElExlD1 , dated 19-12-2022, confiscating the Jaggery of 1 185 Kgs and the vehicle Ashok Leyalnd Goods Carriage - DOST bearing No. TS 29 TA 65 18 of the petitioner seized in C.O.R. No. 73 of 2022 of P S. Prohibition and Excise,Station, Thungathurthy, without looking into the bills through which the petitioner had purchased from a wholesale business shop and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to send the seized Jaggery to other lab for its testing, is nothing but arbitrary,

¶18

illegal, null and vcid and vioratrve of principles of Natural Justice, and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia, even though the Jaggery is not declared as any such prohibitory item under the Excise Act or under any other Law. Consequenfly set aside the orders passed by the respondent No.2 and 4 authoritres thereby direct to release the stocks of Jaggery of 1185 Kgs and the Ashok Leytand vehicte bearing No TS 29 TA 65i8, rn favour of the petitioner

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled rn supp6lt of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in Cr. No. 304/202218, dated 2210912022 and confirmed by the respondent No.4 authority in Cr. No. 2496120221CPE/Ex/D1, dated 1gti2t2O22, thereby direct the respondent authorities to release the stocks of Jaggery of 1,l85 Kgs and the Ashok Leyland vehic'lp bearing No TS 29 TA 6518 in favour of the petitioner seized in Crime No. 73 of 2021 , of PS Prohibition and Excise Station Thungathurthy, Suryapet District, and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VENUMADHAV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: ASSTSTANT GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.1815 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶27

"..to issue an order or direction ruore particularly one in tla nnture of rurit of nnndnnrus or nny otler nppropi e uit declning the orders pnsxtl by tlrc respondent No.2 in Cr.No.304/2022/8, dnted 22/092022 nnd confrmetl by the respondent No.4 mtlority in Cr.No.2496/2.02?JCP E./Ex/D7 dnted 19.12.2022 confwtting tlrc laggery of 1185 Kgs and the ttehicle Ashok bynlnd Gootls Cnrringe-DOST bening No.TS 29 TA 65-18 of the petitioner seiztd in C.O.R.No.73 of 2022 of P.S. Prohibition nnd Excise Stntion, Tlungathurthy, tuithout looking into tlte bills through tohich tla petitioner hnd purclmsed from n toholesale businass shop tnd utithout giuing any opportuni\ to tle petitioner to xtrl the xized lnggery to otlar lab for its testing, is nothing but nrbitrory, illegal, null and ooicl md uiolnhue of principles of Natuml Itrstice,^{and nlsoaiolnttaeof Articles 14,79 aruL 21 of the Constitution} of India eaen though tlu fuggery is not dzcLtred as nny suclllprohibitory itenr uruler tfu Exciy Act or undtr tny other Inru. Coniiquently set aside the orders pnsud by lfu respondent Nos.2 nnd 4 tutlnrities thereby rlirect to releose tfu stocks of ltggery of 1185 Kgs and the Ashok byland aehicle bening No.TS 29 TA 6518 in faaour of tlrc petitioner."

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the vehicle -

¶29

Ashok Leyland Goods Carriage bearing registration No.TS 29 TA 6518. It is stated that the said vehicle was seized in connection with C.O.R.No.73 of 2022, dated 02.08.2022, registered for the offences under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition 4ct,1995 and Section 34 (e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed an explanation before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

¶30

¶31

¶32

Excise. But, responclent No.2, without considering the said explanation, has ordered for confiscation of the vehicle uide order dated22.09.2022 in Cr.No.3('11/2022/8. Questioning the same,^the petitioner has filed an appeal before respondent No.4 - Commissioner', Prohrbition & Elxcise.^{Respondent No.2,without} adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal^{and without taking} into consideration the explanation submitted^{by the petitioner,} has dismissed the appeal^{i,irlc order dated 19.12.2022 confirming} the confiscation order clatecl^{22.09.2022.Hence,the present writ} petition.

¶33

Learned Assistant Govcrnment^{Pleader for Prohibitionand} Excise has sublnitted that respondcnt^No.2-Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and^{Excise has takeninto} consideration the explanatiorr^{submitted by the petitionerand} passed an elaborate and^{reasoned order and the appellate} authority has also examinerl^{the groundsand the expianation} submitted by the petitioner and passed the^{impugned order.} Learned Assistant Govermnent Pleader has further^submitted that if the petitioner is stilI agilrieved by the impugned order, a

¶34

¶35

further remedy of revision lies before the Government under

¶36

Section 64 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

¶37

In view of the fact that the petitioner IS having an alternative efficacious remedy of revision under Section 64 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent No.1 and file a revision against the impugned order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and if any such revision is filed by 'ihe petitioner hereiry respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after giving notices to all the stakeholders, within a period of four weeks thereafter

¶38

5 Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed

¶39

of.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications, il any pending, shall stand

¶41

closed. There shall be no order aslo cosrs

¶42

¶43

SD/. V.KAVITHA ASSTSTANT^REGI/rRAR //TRUE COPY// V SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,'1. The Principal Secretary to the Excise Department' State of Telangana' Secretariai Buildings,^Hyderabad.

¶45

z. ifie oEpJtv^{Comm'issioner,Prohibition and Excise' Suryapet'} 5. iii; 56ti"i^{HouieO*icer,Prohibitionand Excise Station, Thungathurthy'} SuryaPet District.

¶46

The Commissioner^{Prohibition and Excise' Telarrgana' at Hyderabad} ; o;;^{"ct' i;' sni i ver'ru uno HAVAdvocate [oPUC]} 6 Two CCs to^{Gp ron pnciriib'irior.rixciSd, High'courtfor the state of} - Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD^CoPies BSK BSR

I I

{F.i -.
;'/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410612023

ORPER

c o
l\ r-"(
-) 1
,
s .$
s"
,
c H I D

¶53

WP.No.1815 of 2023

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

Gunda Srinivas v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Gunda Srinivas v. The State of Telangana And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Ponagoti Kishan Rao, Vs The state of Telangana

D. Shiv Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Perelli Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

G. Uday Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

Ahsan Ahmed Shaker Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others