Allowed

Durgam Sukdev v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/21336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge against the forfeiture of his agricultural labour bond. The Court set aside the forfeiture order, finding no prior opportunity for explanation and that mere involvement in a crime does not equate to a breach of bond.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Notice dated 02.08.2023 in M.C. No. 147/2022 is set aside; Writ Petition allowed.

Durgam Sukdev Vs The State of Telangana — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21336 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Durgam Sukdev, S/o Shivaram Aged 42^years, Caste Nethakani,^Occ Agriculture, R/o chinthaguda village, Kagaz Nagar ltr'landal, Kumrambheem Asifabad District. TS.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Tahsildar and Mandal Executlve lvlagistrate,^{Kagaz Nagar[Vlandal,} Kumrambheem Asifabad Dist. ,

¶14

1. The Station House Officer, Proh and Excise Station,^KagazNagar, Kumrambheem Asifabad District'

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or Direction, more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of^{the 2nd Respondentin} issuing the impugned Notice in M. C. No. 14712022 dated 02. 08.^{2023 directing} the petitioner herein to^pay a^penalty of^{Rs. 1,00,000/- within seven (7) daysas} being arbitrary, illegal bad in law and consequently set aside^the same lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court^{maybe pleasedto} grant stay of all further proceedings in M. C. No. 14712,022 dated 02. 08. 2023 issued by the 2nd Respondent^pending disposal^of the main^{writ petition}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. JARUPULA^RAMU Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2:GP FOR^REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP^{FORPROHIBITIONEXCISE}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21336 OF 2023

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Tiris u,rit peiition is filcd itlallengrrrq the intpLrgnc:<l rrotict:, dated 02.O8.2023 isstreci brr responrlcnt No.2-Tahsilrlar and Mandal ljxecr-rtir.,e Magistrirre, Iiagaz Nagirr IUrrndi]1, Kumrambhccnr Asifabarl District.

¶23

lleard k':rrncd i'ounsel lor tht: pctilionr:r and leirrned Governn'rent Plcaders lirr Rcvenuc anrl Prol'ribilion an<l F,xcise for the responcicnts.

¶24

Pctitioner hcrcin clairns th.rt he is ekir-rg out his livelihc;ocl by doing agrir:ulturc larbour. Or 16.O9.2022 hc^..r'as marle to execute a bond ol good behavii-.r for an air..ount of Rs 1,()O.00O/.

¶25

While so, ot O2.O8.2O23, a noticc for lorferture oi bond of good behavior rvas issucd by the seconcl respondent alleging that petitioner cornnrittcd breacl-r of bond by ini,r.rlving in an Excise offence. The basis of the said notice is leitcr arldrcssed by the Prohibition and llxcise Station, Kagaz Nagar.

¶26

From a reading o[ the impugned r,varrant, it is seen that no prior oppcrtunity u,zrs given to the petitioner to exl)larn his stand before ordering forfeiture oI tl-re amount furnisherl bv him

¶27

¶28

earlicr. Thal apart, thc reasolt assigncd for forfeiture^{is alleged} irrvohemcnt oI thc petitrortcr in a crimc.

¶29

Mere involvemcn[ in a crrmc would not itsclf constitute breach of bond furnishcd by thc pctitioner as it cannot bc treated on par u,ith conviction. Thus, on both counts,^{i.e., on} facts and in larv, the impugnecl notice, dated O2.O8.2O23^is unsustainable. Irurthcr-, it is blought to the noticc of this Court that undcr similar circumstanccs, this Court allou,ed a^batchof Writ Petitions.

¶30

Accordingly, tl'rc inrpugncd warrant in M.C.No. 147 /2022, dated 02.O8.2023 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶31

However, it is macle clear that this order would not preclude the authorities lrom procceding in the matter in accordance u,ith the principlcs of natural^justice in future, if warranlcd. No order as to costs.

¶32

Miscellancous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶33

closed

¶34

SD'^.K.AMMAJI ASSt STANT^RE GISTRAR 6b //TRUE^COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER

¶35

To, 1. The itEa'd*"lffi:r%^{principarsecretary, Revenue(Excise), M.nd"t e'""'tiveMasistrate' Department, Kagaz secretariat'Nagar Mandal'} 2. 3. 4. q lt:u[.ii+g$:ri-,u^{lffi :":'; ::} " ;:

¶36

t) t'"'"":ttS^{S?YIo*'o"ARAMU 'Advocate toPucl} 7 Two^{CD CoPies} BM

¶37

n- GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0411012023

ORDER

-:'il\iL: i..,.,
i,
1i- :.r ii
'LE lli i?m
_./

¶44

WP.No.21336 of 2023

¶45

ALLOWING THE WRITPETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

\(}{(J
&"

Durgam Sukdev v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgam Sukdev 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

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

Sri Sai Ram Chemicals Vs The Station House Officer

Madaraboina Rajender Vs The State of Telangana