Dismissed

Kolipaka Kiran kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023WP/21090/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration that issuance of a confiscation order with a heavy fine was arbitrary. Court held revision lies under Section 64 of Telangana Excise Act and petitioner directed to approach State Government.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file revision before State Government; Respondent No. 2 to refrain from coercive action pending revision.

Kolipaka Kiran kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21090 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kolipaka Kiran kumar, S/o. Ramesh, Age.44 Years, Occ. owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 09 CH 0727, Fl/o H.No. 120, Rebanna Village and Mandal, Komarambheem-Aseefabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, At Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Asifabad Police Station, Adilabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned CR.No.328/202OlCPEnSlD1, Dated. O8|2O2O partially modifying the order passed by the 3rd respondent in File No. B2l197/DC Al2O19, dated. 10-01-2020 by imposing a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- for release of the vehicle bearing Reg. No- AP 09 CH 0727 permanently, though the said vehicle is old vehicle i.e., the 2012 model as being illegal, and arbitrary.

¶17

IA NO: 1 202

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} direct the 2nd Respondent herein to^{modifythe orderpassedby the 2nd} Respondent in lmpugned order CR.No.32Ll2O2OlCPElTSlDl ,^{Dated. O8.202O by} accepting 20percentage of the^{amount from out of fine amountof Rs'1} ,25'0001.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{LAXMAIAHKANCHANI}

¶20

& Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FOR PROHIBITION} EXCISE

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

TTIE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE C' V' BHASKAR REDDY} ION No.2^1090OF20/20

¶23

oRDER:

¶24

The writ^{petitionis hled seeking following retief:}

¶25

".. . ... to^{issue an oppropiote Wnt order or Directionmore} ,on,o,,oio'"1',.':::::T::rf ,y::,{,#":::X;"::::;7fl I: T;:;;,;i;i;,';1J;i';"T;;o'uiioio"o'"'attsmodituingtteorder^{passed bv} 'n"'"^t'i' '?!;:dt:t^,-:n^{File No} 82/197/DcA/2019^{dated 10 01 2O2Obg imposing-1lneof Rs1} 25 0o0/ for^{releaseof the} "tn"i"^{i""n"iReg' No AP 09 CH0727} oermanently^{thoughthe t'^i}'ii"'"iJ oH uehiclei'e the 2o12 ";:;;;' bJins^{ittisatond orbitrary ""'"}

¶26

It^{is the case of the petitionerthat he isthe} registered^{owner of the HyundaiVerna Car beanng} The said^{vehicle was} registratton^{No.AP Og CH 0727} seized^{in C.O'R'No' 136 of 2O19 which was registeredfor} the offences^{Punishable underSection 3a (e) of the} Telangana^{Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act")'It is} the further^{case of the Petitionerthat resPondent No'3} 1O.O1.2020^without passed^{confiscationorder' dated} issuing^{anynotice andwithout affordingany} opportunity^{to him and challengingthe said conhscation} order,^{the petitioner hled statutory appealbefore}

¶27

¶28

respondent No.2, who in turn passed orders partially modifying the confiscation orders passed by respondent No.3, dated 70.o7.2020 rmposrng hne of Rs. l,2li,OOO/_ and ordered for permanent release of the vehicle.

¶29

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the vehicle 1S of the year 2OlL and respondenr. No.2 without considering the model of the vehick: has tmposed fine of Rs.1,25,000/_ and the said vehicle is kept for etuction. Learned counsel for the petilioner further submits that the Commissioner for prohibition and Excise has committed an error in determininl; the penalty amount as Rs.1,25,OOO/- and the samc is required to be reduced

¶30

Against the orders of the Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, a revision would lie under Section 64 of the Act which reads as under:

¶31

"Revision: The Government may, either suo motu or on an application call for and examine the records of any officer in respect of any decision, order, or ottrer proceedings made under this Act.,,

¶32

¶33

In^{view of the specihc power being conferredon} State Government^{to entertainexercisethe revision' the} petitioner^{is relegated to approach respondentNo' 1 for} hling revision^{and if such revision is hled' respondent} No.l shall^{disposeof the sarne' in accordancewith law'} as expeditiously^{as possible' preferably'within a period} of three^{(3) months from the date of filing of revision and} till then,^{respondentNo'2 is directed not to take any} coercive^{action on the vehicleof the petitioner'}

¶34

With^{the above observation' this writ petition is} disPosed^{of. No order as to costs'}

¶35

As a sequel^{thereto'miscellaneous petitions'if any'}

¶36

pending shall^standclosed'

¶37

' "'^{ot3,Eiift +HI8I$FIXX} //rRUE coPY'/ sEcTloN^&tt"t*

¶38

Revenue^{(Excise) Department' Secretariat'}

¶39

t"'', . l$"r:;'J;loa**"&"I"tary' ll'Iy,f,"J35lto,,"o"o

¶40

3Tk","Sl*Ts#:.$:,?:1";*m'..""'ief

¶41

c'Jf+?tf,r*L^{-i::T: s'ia'ie'r}

¶42

i ftifl1]Tpf#ffiiflfu 7. Two^{CD CoPtes'} BSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

l vtl: s r,q 16
-$
J
(.)
0 6 llE[ 2023
az
t *
C5SpArCt(r0

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.21090 of 2020

¶49

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS firf4fr) t-/ '

¶50

lp:

Kolipaka Kiran kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kolipaka Kiran kumar 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

Mr. Abdul Mannan Vs The State of Telangana

Samala Raj Karate Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kunduru SubbaRao Vs The Government of Telangana

Qadeer Mohammed Vs The State of Telangana

Chinthapally Ganga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gadasu Laxmi, Vs The State of Telangana