Dismissed

Bhusha Srinivas v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/9783/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the confiscation of a vehicle under the Excise Act. The Court held that the petitioner had an alternative effective remedy of filing a revision under Section 64 and dismissed the writ, sending the party to the appropriate appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file revision before Respondent No. 1; vehicle released subject to bank guarantee and undertaking.

Bhusha Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^s2e6 ]

¶2

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

wRlT PET|TION NO:9783 0F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bhusha Srinivas, S/o Kondaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ Driver. F/o.plot \9,!8aSP,^{Telephone Colony, Boduppal, Medipally,Medchal, HyderabadT.S.-} 500092

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Excise Departmet, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Telangana, Hyderabad-

¶13

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

¶14

The Station House officer, PS Serole.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that h the circumstances stated^. in the affidavit filed there.with, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for records and quash the order dated 16i03/2023 passed in Cr.No.34Bl2O22lCPElExlD1 by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Excise Act, 1968.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the Vehicle bearing no. TS08UG0495.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SRIDHAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITIONN0.9783 of2o23

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of ttre Constitution of India is filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order, dated 16.03.2023, passed in Cr.No.348/2022/CpE/Ex/D 1 by respondent No.3 and quash the same.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that a case in C.O.R. No.319 of 2O2O was registered against him on 24.OT.2O2O for ttre offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short "the Act 196g.) and seized black jaggery and Alum along with the vehicle from his possession. Aggrieved by seizure of vehicle bearing No.TS_Og_UG_O495, the petitioner Iiled W.P.No.22322 of 2Ol9 before this Court and this Court by interim order, dated 15.1O.2O19, in I.A.No.l of 2019 in W.P.No.22322 of 2Ol9 released the vehicle subject to petitioner furnishing 25" of tb,e bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle ln question. Thereafter, respondent No.3 i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition ald Excise, Warangal, after conducting detailed enquiry, passed order, dated 24.12.2027

¶26

(

¶27

¶28

directing confiscation of the DCM Van bearing TS-O8_UG_O495. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3, the petitioner hled an appeal under Section a6 (C) of the Act, t96g before respondent No.2 and after hearing the matter, respondent No.2 has conlirmed the order passed by respondent No.3 stating that petitioner's vehicle was found in possession of neariy l50O kgs of black jaggery and 25 kgs of Alum. The grievance of the petitioner is that while dismissing the appeal, respondent No.2_ the appellate authority has not assigned any reasons, except stating that samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and basing on said ieport, respondent No.2 has confirmed the confiscation order dated 24.12.2021.

¶29

[,earned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that respondent No.2_the appellate authority has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and in fact, he has relied upon the information furnished by respondent No.3, who is the confiscating authority and therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2_the appellate authority suffers from non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural jusLice.

¶30

karned Assistant Government pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos. I to 3 has

¶31

¶32

vehemently contended that against the orders passed by respondent No.2, a revision would lie before respondent No.1 and since the petitioner is having an alternative and efhcacious remedy to hle revision under Section 64 of the Act 1968, the present writ petition frled by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

¶33

In view of the above submissions and as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of frling revision under Section 64 of the Act 1968, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, relegating the petitioner to avail the remedy of hling revision before respondent No.1 and if any such revision is hled by the petitioner, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six (6) months from the date of filing such revision. Pending disposal of the revision, petitioner's vehicle i.e., DCM Van bearing No.TS-O8-UG-O495 shall be released subject to the petitioner furnishing a fixed deposit/bank guarantee of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Laksh Fifty Thousand only). The petitioner is further directed not to encash the fixed deposits or create lien or mortgage on the fixed deposits till the disposal of the revision. The petitioner shall also produce original R.C. Book of the vehicle at the time of release of

¶34

the vehicle.^{The petitionershall furnishan undertaking that he} will not^{trans{er or alienate the vehicleto third party in any} manner,^{he willmaintain the vehicleinthe} same^good roadworthy^{condition without changing its maJor} parts and features^{andhe will produce the vehicle as and when directedby} the concerned^{Courtor competent authority'}

¶35

With the^{above observations'this Writ Petitionis} disposed^{of. No costs'}

¶36

Miscellaneouspetitions'ifany'pendinginthiswrit

¶37

petition shall^standclosed'

¶38

SD/. MOHD.^{SANAU LLAH-ANSARI} ASSISTANTFEGl9TRAR //rRUE COPY/I 4,/

¶39

SECT!ON^OFFlCER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Principal^{Secretary,Excise Departmet' Secretariat' Hyderabad' Stateof} , +ifu"ll*^{J.:'11#'lFieif,lf;on.,noqre':e,-r"l3ls?i31.!]offi,o"Xon,,} ,,ono, 5. i'#^{-r;;di,Comhissionerof ProhibitionanoE}

¶42

I lffit"J'ngi#mmq*^{Pf"Y'? Hgh court ror the state or} " iJringrn, it Hyderabad' [oUT] 7. Two CD^CoPies' BSK GJP \y

¶43

HIGH COURT

¶44

DATED:1 511212023

¶45

g s1. Aic {j, ..:
q
.J
1 $ ttB ?ili
o(J
Oi, SP.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.9783 of 2023

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Bhusha Srinivas v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhusha Srinivas v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Sri.B.Janardhan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary

Arif Khan Vs State of Telangana

Mohd Ashraf Ali Vs State of Telangana

Kota Konda Pitchaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Chitra Rekha Rani Vs C.V.N. Raju

Akther Zahida Vs Sri. C. Sudarshan Reddy, IAS