Dismissed

Sri Ch Giridhar Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2023WP/18647/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle, observing that the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the TS Excise Act 1968 is the appropriate avenue. The court directed the petitioner to file a revision and dispose of the writ without costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to file a revision under Section 64 of the Act.

Sri Ch Giridhar Babu Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

[^32e61

: I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA , ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMAER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

Between:

¶9

I WRIT PETITION NO: 18647 OF 2023 I

¶10

llI

¶11

Sri Ch Giridhar AaOu, Sr/o Ch. Manohar, Aged 32^yrs, Occ ; Employee,^{Rl/o. PlotNo} 83, Rukmini Enclave, Near Bolaram Railway Station,^Hyderabad.

.....PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Prohibition and^Excise Department Dr B.R Ambedkar Secretariat Building,^{Telanganasecretariat,} Tank Bund Roadl Hyderabad, Telangana -^5OOO22.

¶16

The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise,^{Hyderabad,Telangana.}

¶17

The Dy Commissioner of Prohibition and^{Excise, Medak Division,} Sangareddy. i

¶18

The SHO, Prohibition and Excise Station, Zaheerabad.

¶19

| .....RESPoNDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated lin the I affidavit filed therewith, the^High Court^{may be} I pleased to issue a wrid order or direction more particularly one in tile nature of a writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the vehicle bearing no TS 08 FJ 9435 that was seized under COR.No.96/2022 dated 16-09-2022, Piohibition & Excise PS, Zaheerabad being^illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of^principles of^{naturaljustice} and^also Provisions of TS Excise Act 1968 and consequently^{set asidethe orders of 2nd} Respondent vide Cr.no.329l2O23lCPElExlD1 dated^{16-05-2023 alongwith} confiscation proceedings of 3'd Respondent^{videCr.No.C/79/2022|DCMdated} 12-12-2022 directing them to release the^{vehicle bearing no TS 08 FJ 9435.}

¶21

i.I

¶22

f.A.NO:'f OF 2023

¶23

Petition Under ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated I in the affidavit filed in bupport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to I direct the respondentslto release the vehicle bearing no TS 0B FJ g43s that was seized under coR.Nd.96/2022 dated 16-09-2022, prohibition and Excise pS, Zaheerabad.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitidner : SRt LAKSHM]KANTH REDDY DESAT

¶25

I Counsel for the Respdndents : Gp FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCTSE i The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE SRI T'USTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 18647 of 2o23

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The writ petition is fiied seeking follow,ing reliel:

¶30

". . . . . . to issue a writ, order or dtrectton more particularly one in tile nature of a uit of Mandamus d.eclaing the action of the Respondents in not releosing the uehicle beoing no. TS O8 FJ 9435 that uas seized under COR No. 96/2022 dated 16.09.2022 Prohibition & Excise PS, Zaheerabad being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and ln uiolation of pnnciples of naturol^justtce ond also Prouisions of TS Excise Act, 1968 and consequently set aside the orders of 2nd Respondent uide Cr. No.329/ 2023/ CPE/ Ex/ D1, dated 16.05.2023 along ulith conllscotion proceedings of 3rdRespondent uide Cr.No. C/ 79/ 2022/ DCM, dated 12.I2.2022 directing them Lo release the uehicle beaing no. 7lS O8 lu 9435......"

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of Car bearing No. TS 08 FJ 9435. The said vehicle was seized in C.O.R.No.96 of 2022 which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act").

¶32

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner made application for release of the seized vehicle before respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 examined the case in COR No.96 ol 2022, dated

--r

i:r

CVI]R.^J Wp 18617^201-i

¶37

16.09.2022 and^{ordered confiscation of the said vehicle} uid.e order, dated^{12. 12.2022.Aggrievedby.the same' the} petitioner filed an^{appeal, dated08'02'2023 underSection} 46(C) of the Act,^{and thesarne was dismissedby} respondent No.2 on^{16 .O5.2O23confirrningthe orders} issued by respondent^{No.3 inCr'No'C/79 /2022 IDCM'} dated 12.12.2022.

¶38

Learned Assistant^{Government Pleaderfor} Prohibition and^{Excise vehementlycontended that against} the confiscation^{order, dated12 '12 '2022 issued by} respondent^{No.3, a revision would lie under Section 64 of} the Act and the^{petitioner instead of filing revisionagainst} the confiscation^{order, dated 12 ' 12 '2022 filed this writ} petition.

¶39

Against the orders^{of theCommissioner for} Prohibition and^{Excise,a revision would lie under Section} 64 of the^{Act whichreads as under:}

¶40

"Revision:^{The Government may, either suo motu} or on an application^{call for and examinethe} records of any^{officer in respect of any decision'} order, or other^{proceedings made under this Act "}

'*'^u 'J

-;/

CVBII. J wp 186-17 l02l

¶45

In vielv of the specific revisional power being conferred on State Government, the petitioner is relegated to approach respondent No.1 for filing revision under Section 64 of the Act within a period of two (2) weeks from today and if such revision is filed, respondent No. I shall dispose of the s€une, in accordance with law, AS expeditiously S possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of filing of revision, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

¶46

7 . With the above observations, this writ petition IS disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶47

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

t I

'",U:,:[Iii?d;:hui,L!"lg'1"*,il:,f"['iT"??i,xtii,lii"?;[Ambedkar

¶52

i"rrngrnr"tHvd"'1b,3fl ibrtt".,lXTil?;""'.',r","fi ,lerabad,retansana.

¶53

Divisi6n'

¶54

1. Il3 SitT,iil?i,Hhl;;i^{ruioitiona no excise} SanoareddY. I

¶55

a. ifii,"dno,^{Frohibitlon and Ex;,,?i3liX,il;?lSid?ifl1nr} "rriEair< court rorthe^State 6. " f*o CCs^{to GP FOF} 6. "i One One CC^i"i"i6ii'fl CC^{to Sri Laksht1v9,"jffi ;tfl}otJr,""",,Advocate topucl}

¶56

"i One One CC

¶57

Two^{CD CoPies t}

SA GJP

i J il it ' ii

HIGH COURT

DATE D:0411212023

v T T€
1
s
cf,oq ?1 0E[ ?[?3

Ds s P.rrrC

ORDER

WP.No.18647 ot 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

<br>

1-D

Sri Ch Giridhar Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ch Giridhar Babu 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

Nevuri Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Sikinder Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Pulla Anwesh Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sabiha Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Suchit R Dubey Vs The State of Telangana

Challa Balaji Vs The State of Telangana