The High Court set aside an appellate order imposing a fine under the Telangana State Excise Act for lack of reasons, violating natural justice, and remanded it for a fresh hearing and reasoned decision.
Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh hearing and reasoned order within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE SI ;;"]li#l[iflri{:;'"',^,"^,^
I32e6 I
'oI?t"+J3[.'lX,L.iill'L?A,?I,o;;og.*
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
Between:
IT PETITIONNO:2 0198 OF 2023
ili[n,:"flsmT:nifl"f*"o ?:i +J#i.j.ff,3,f53,
...PETITIONER AND
i, di*m=jffi t?ililrffi ffi,.**+, d;i-
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or Direction especiary one in the Nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records . of the orders passed in cr 'No -821r2,23tcpEtExrD1 dt.o4ro7 12023 0f the 2nd respondent and quash the same to the extent of imposing a fine of Rs.3.00 Lakhs.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 preased to suspend the orders of the 2nd respondent passed in cr.No.B21t2o23tcpEtEx/D1 dt-041o712023 to the extent of imposing fine of Rs.3.00 rakhs in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for thepetitioner: SRI CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE I he court made the following: ORDER
-;7
HON'BLESRI JUSTICEC'V'BIIASKARREDDY PETITIONNo.2o198of2o23
ORDER:
Thisrvrit petition has been filed questioning the ordersof the appellateauthority passedunder Section 46 (c) of theTelangana State Excise lrct' 1968 (for short "the Act")
EJFTq .;
2
CVBR,J Wp-20198-2023
authorityi'e', respondentNo'3 herein' Questioningthe saidseizure,the petitioner'being the registeredowner of theVolvo bus filed an application underSection 46 l2l of the Act.Respondent No'3 had issued anotice in Cr.No.C/1O/2023IDCM' dated 76'03'2023tothe petitionerandaccused Nos. 1and 2,callingfor their explanationas to why the vehicle and contrabandseized shouldnot be confiscated under Section a6 (21 of the Act' It isthe further case of the petitionerthat soon after receipt ofthesaidshow-causenotice,hehassubmittedadetailed explanation,dated3O'03'2023 stating that the driverof the vehicleshave confessed that they were transportingthe liquorfrom Goa to Hyderabadfor the sake of getting monetarybenelits without knowledgeof the owner of the vehicle.It is furtherstated in the explanationthat the in the Panchanama Prohibitionand ExciseInsPector of thebus isnot specificallystated that the owner the tralsPortationof the resPonsibleor concernedwith Furtherhe also stated that subjectnon-dutY Paid liquor' the Petitioneralso filed forrelease ofthe vehicle' W.P.No.3041of 2023 and this Court disposed of the said
'i7
-)
CVBR, J Wp_20198_2023
writ petition holding that "the conte nts of the panchanama clearLA indicate that otuner is not in a.nA uqA concerned uith the seizure of the uehicle and lhe said fact is euen established in the enquiry and the szid fact also finds place in the confession statements recorded in the panchanama, dated 30.01.2023" and also grante,l interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. It is t.ne further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 without taking into consideration the material evidence available on record has erroneously confiscated the vehicle and the contraband and passed order in CR.No. C/lOl2023/DCM, dated 31.03.2023. Aggrieved by the orders of respondent No.3, the petitior.rer has filecl an appeal under Section 46 (c) of the Act before respondent No.2. By an order, dated 04.O7.2023, respondent No.2 h.ad modified the order passed by respondent No.3 and imposed fine of Rs.3,OO,000/- to release the vehicle permanently to the petitioner. Challenging the same the present writ petition is fi1ed.
4
CVBR,J wp 201982023
5
CVBR, J wp_20198 2023
reasonsq,hatsoever have been assigned, which action on the part of respondent No.2 amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2r in CR.No.82 I/20231 CPtr/ExD1, dated 04.07.2023, is sr:t aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2, directing him to examine the matter duly taking note of all the submissions and contentions raised in the appe:al and after conducting fresh hearing and providing an opportunity to the petitioner pass reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/. G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ctp SECTION OFFICER
To
1 The Principal secretary, profribition and Excise Department, T.s. secretariat, Hyderabad, State of T6lanqana. The commissioner,prohibition and Excise, Terangana state at Hyderabad. J The Deputy-commissionerof prohibitiorr ,19_eigire, sanga,",ioy'Diitr[i.-' 4 One CC to SRI CH.RAV|NDER. Advocare ropr rCi-'- 5 Two CCs to Gp FORpROHtBtTtON EXC|SE, High Court for the State of Telan_gana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] tt Two CD Copies PSK. GJ
HIGH COURT
DATED:1611012023
ORDER
WP.No.20198 of 2023
$E SrAf €'
k
q
oo 0 2 ilolJ 2023 f
{
D[spATCS A, .t, |/
_DISPOSINGOF THE WR|TpE:TtTtON WITHOUT COSTS.
N<br>
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate order imposing a fine under the Telangana State Excise Act is liable to be set aside as a speaking order lacking reasons.
Whether the enforcement authority violated principles of natural justice by not considering the petitioner's explanation regarding the driver's confession.
Whether the impugned order merits remand to the decision-maker to conduct a fresh hearing and pass a reasoned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Javeed Khan
Syed Imran
C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
