Disposed

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/20477/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking release of seized Alum bags. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 46 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 before the Deputy Commissioner, who was then directed to examine invoices and pass orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply under Section 46 of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968; Deputy Commissioner to examine and pass orders within 2 weeks.

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals Vs The Station House… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C-V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20477 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals, R. S. No. 136/5 K. Agraharam, Jaggaiahpet village and Mandal, Krishna (N.T.R.) District, Rep. by Thammepalli Sri Ramachandra Gupta, S/o Thummepalli Ranga Rao Rio H. No. 2-177, liluktyala Road, Jaggaiahpet Krishna (N.T.R. )District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Station House Officer, Proh. and Excise Station, Madhira, Khammam Diskict.

¶13

The Deputy Commisioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶14

The District Task Force Officer, Prohibition and Excise Department, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶15

The Excise Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶16

The Director, Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Complex, Nampally Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-50000'1.

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Proh. and Excise, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 Writ or Order more particulady one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the l st Respondent seized the Petitioner's 600 bags of Alum (each 50 Kg) and kept under custody before Respondent No. 2 showing the cause of 20 Liters of l.D. Liquor damaged the Petitioner's business without following the earlier orders of this Hon'ble Court vide W.P. No. 8944 of

¶20

2020 dated 03.02.2022 as gross violation and negligence, ill3gal. arbitrary and violation of Principl )s of Fundamental Rights guaranleed trn(ler Articles 14, 19 (1)(g,21, 300 A ard 301 of Constitution of lndia and sulrsequ:ntly direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, not to interfere on trading of Alum arrd release the 600 bags of AIum with ryood condition to the Petitioner orr the^ilurse of this Hon'ble Court earlier Order^\V.P. No. 8944 of 2O2O dated 03.02.2022 and \'l .P. No. 29458 of 1998 dated 26.10 1998.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the cirr:u rnst,l nces stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High C()urt may be^pleased direct the official responderts to release the Petitioner's 600 trags c,f r\lurn^(each 50 Kg) seized by the 1st Respondent kept under custody at in(l F.espondent on 22.O2.2023 at Bonallal Check Post of Khammam District pending Cisposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petiti()ner: SRl. K.RAMACHANDRA

¶24

Counsel for the Rescondents No 1 TO 6: AGP FOR PFOHIBITION AND EXCISE

¶25

The Court made the fc,llowing: ORDER

¶26

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V, BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20477 of 2023

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This u,rit petition is filed seeking tl're follon,ir-rg ri:lief:

¶31

".......fo issue Wit or Order ntore particulerllJ otp il tlte noture of Wnt of Mand.amus declaring action of tle la Respotldet::. seiz,ed the Petitiotler's 6O0 bags of Altun (each 5() Kg) and kept under custodA before Respondent No.2 showirtg th<' cause of 20 Litres of I.D. Liquor damaged the Petitiorter's lr(si,ress rr.,ilhorl follouing^{tleeorlier onlers of tltis Hon'ltleOotollrcle,} W.P.No.8944 of 2020 dated 03.02.2022 as gros-s tiolcttiott ctnd rregligence, illegal, arbitrary atTd uioletion of l'irtciples of Fundamerttal Rigttts guarqnteed under Articles la, l9(1)(q), 21, 3OOA and 3O1 oJ Constitutiotl of lndio end subse(Netltly direct the Respondent flos. I fo 4, tlot to interJt:re on trtuling of Alunr and release the 600 bags of Alum u'itlt good coi(lition to tl:P. Petitioner on the guise of this llon'ble Court eerller Ordcr W.P.No.8944 of 2020 dated 03.02.2022 and W.|'.No.29458 o.f 1998 dated 26.1O.1998 and pass such ollter reLie./s...."

¶32

Petitioner claims to be a manufacturing unit of Alum used for purification of water since last 7 years under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME), Government of India. It is the case of the petitioner that it has acquired all the required permissions from the Government Authority and the factory is situated at Jaggaiahpet, at border of Telangana State. It is the further case of the^petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 visited the Alum Factory and after inspection, verification of licenses and^permissions, they found that he is not manufacturing any illicit liquor. When \ the petitioner was earlier subjected to^continuous

¶33

)

¶34

( vlll(. .! \p 10477 l0ll

¶35

inspections and harassmcnt, he rvas constrainr:d to file Writ Petition No 8944 of 2O2O and this Cour t disposerl of tl.re said writ pr:tition directing the responderlts-e.'ic se oflicials not to inter'ere into the business ol the petitio ne r,^rrxcept if the petition')r found to be contravened an.., of t)re provisions of the Excis : Act. It is the further case of the pet.tioner that he has pur,:hased 60O bags of Alum frorn Sue Incrustrie s, Survey No. 19, Radhod Vasna Road, Virtva Villa11e, T.A. Dahegam, Gandhi Nagar District, on 19.O2.:20113 r,tith Invoice No.ii5 for Rs. i,94,7OO/- along wrth I(i-e,T ;rnd the materizrl u,as ordered to transport by road thro -rgtr e-Way Bill on a Tluck with valid permissions. It is the further case of the retitioner that when the respr,nderLts. in spected its premises and took custody of the_ labour worl<in;3 in the factory witl rout registration of any crime imd without disclosing z ny reasons lor conducting ,jearch or takir-rg custodv of the labour, he was constra ned tc, file Writ Petition No.14727 ol 2023 and this Cou:'t on 21.06.2023 disposed of -he same directing the respon,lent-pr licr: not to interfere int,> the business activity of the petitiorrer, except in accordan<:e with lam,.

ir d.

I I I

-1

C'VBR.,I \t l,r l? 7 fol1

¶41

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents-police without follorving due process of larv seized the Alum on road which was purchased by him through Invoice No.83, which is the subject mater of the present writ petition.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a manufacturing unit of rvater purified chemicals and for the said purpose, it has purchased Alum through Invoice No.83, but the respondents have illegally seized the Alurn on the ground that the said Alum is being used for the purpose of manufacturing I.D. liquor. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 46 ol The Telangana Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act, 1968'), where an5rthing liable for confiscation under Section 45 of the Act, 1968, is seized or detained under the provisions of this Act, the officer seizing and detaining such property shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the said property before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, who has jurisdiction over the area. Learned counsel further subrqitted tl-rat admittedly petitioner's 600 bags of Alum was seized on 22.02.2023 at Bonakal Check

¶43

¶44

( 't t. J l\ | l()477 ,r01.1

¶45

post, l(harr mam District. rvl-rile transporting the Alr,rm from Gujarat S,ate to .Jaggaiahpet, Andhra Plarlesh, alter drarving tL e samplcs, the same was :ient fr;r^r:hemical exarmination to C. E. , Warangal. Learne d cor;rrsel for the pe titioner t.as vehementl,r' contended th:Lt an'r' of lhe item being seizel under the provisions of the Act, 1968, ar-rd when the s rme are liable for confiscation und,:r Section 45 ol thc Ac:, 1968, the Deputy Com'nissirrLer is the competent iruthorit_v to release the same or pro:eed with the confiscatior proceedings.

¶46

Learn,:d Assistant Government Plearler fc,r Prohibition and Excise appearing for the responden ts h:Ls stibmitted that chen.ical analysis report No.').43 / l>.O23 dated O1.O3.2023 shows that illicit distilled liquor and Alum seized from the petitioner is unfit for hurnan^,:onsumption and injuriorrs to the health. Learned Assistant Govt:rnment Pleader furl her submitted that the Deputy C oromissioner has initiaterI the confiscation proceedings again st the seized stocks vide show cause notice Cr.No.22l2O23/I' &. Ex/42 dated 20.03 2023 and the same is pendingl for zLd-iudication.

I I

I I

( ,Rtt..r r1,p l(1177 l0ll

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to submit a representation before the Deputv Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam District i.e., respondent No.2, r,r,ho is the competent autl-rority for release of the stocks u,hile exercising pou crs under Section 46 of the Act, 1968.

¶53

In vieu, ol the above submission, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 46 ol the Act, 1968, before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam District i.e., responclent No.2, and if such application is made, respondent No.2 is directed to examine the same duly taking note of tl-re invoices and purchase bills produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordalce with the provisions of the Act, 1968, within a^period of two⁽²⁾ r.r,eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

B. With the above observation, this Writ Petition^is disposed of. No costs.

¶55

¶56

cvuR..l , ,r ')J77 ra,r l

¶57

As a secluei, the misccllaneous^{petitionsper-rriing, if}

¶58

anv, sherll st rnd closed.

¶59

SD/-I'I, RAJAGOPAL ASSISTAIIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO.fu E" OFFICER^./ To, 'l . The Station Hcuse Officer, Proh. and Excise Statirrn, [Vladhira, Khammam District.

¶60

,/ -/

¶61

The Deputy Commisioner of Prohibition and Excisa, Khammarn District, Khammam.

¶62

The District T,rsk Force Officer, Prohibition and Excise Departrnent, Khammam, K rammam District.

¶63

The Excise Sr rperintendent, Prohibition and Excist:, Kharnrnant District, Khammam.

¶64

The Director,^)rohibition and Excise, Prohibition arrd Exc,is,-. Qrrmplex, Nampally Stat on Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-S0C 001 .

¶65

The Principal iecretary State of Telangana, Proh. and E:x<;ise Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶66

One CC to Sttl. K RAIVIACHANDRA Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to CiP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE ,High Court br the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶68

Two CD Copie s BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012023

ORDER

,.,
-i i;3r&TF o
t
,,Y
,.f 11 $tI$B
i:)o
k ,,r
;;''

¶76

wP.No.20477^,>l'2023

¶77

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE WRI'I' PETITIO]{}

¶78

WITHOUT^CoSTS

¶79

@ *

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals v. The Station House Officer

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

Shri Ananthavishnu (Prabhu) Vs The State of Telangana

Sandaveni Anil Vs The State of Telangana

J. Krishna Naik, Vs The State of Telangana

Erumalla Pushpa Vs The State Of Telangana

Madaraboina Rajender Vs The State of Telangana

Durgam Sukdev Vs The State of Telangana