Disposed

Guguloth Bujji v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024WP/29124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking return of seized alum, observing that confiscation proceedings were pending and samples awaited chemical analysis under the Telangana Prohibition Act, deeming it premature to declare the seizure illegal at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach respondent No.3 for interim release of contraband on filing appropriate application.

Guguloth Bujji Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29124 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Guguloth Bujji, W/o Kasana, Age^{48 years,} Occ. Proprietor^{Bagalata Alam Ktran} and General Merchant, Sri Raqa School,^7-5-10711 , Tatipalli Apartments, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Prohibition^and Excise Complex. Abkari Bhavan, Nampally Station^{Road,Nampally Road,} Hyderabad

¶13

The Deputy Commissroner, of^{Prohibitionand ExciseDepartment, Ballepalli,} Khanapuram, Khammam District

¶14

The Prohibition and Excise^{lnspector, Kothagudem, Telangana}

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavrt^{filed therewith,} the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature^{of Writ of} Mandamus declaring that, a) direct^{the 4th Respondentto immediately returnthe} 82 bags of Alam^(each bag consisting^{of 50 kgs) which was illegally takenaway} by the 4th Respondent from the shopi^{of the Petitioner bearingH.No.7-5-10711.} Medar Basthi, Kothagudem as^{illegaland arbitrary b) further declarethat.} Petitioner is entitled for return of the^{82 Aiam bags (eachbag consistingof 50} kgs), from the 4th Respondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 pleased to direct the 4th Respondent to immediately return the 82 bags of Alam (each bag consisting of 50 kgs) which was illegally taken away by the 4th Respondent from the shop of the Petitioner bearing H.No.7-5- 107/1 , Medar Basthi, Kothagudem, pending disposal of the Writ Petition,

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MA,DIRAJU f

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE^SRI IUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶22

WRIT PETTTTO NN 0.291240F²⁰²⁴

¶23

ORDER: (ORAL)

¶24

This writ petition is^{fited by the petitionerseeking to direct} respondent No.4^{- the Prohibition and Excise lnspector, Kothagudem'} to immediately return^{eight two (82) bags of Atum(eachbag} consisting of 50^{kgs) illegally seizeclby respondent No'4 and staff from} the shop of the^{petitioner bearing tlNo'7-5-107/1" Medar Basthi'} Kothagudem.

¶25

Heard Mr. Srinivasa^{Rao Mardiraf u, learned counsel for the} petitioner, altd^{Mr- S. Laxmi Narayarr'r,It'arned AssistantGovernment} Pleader for ProhiLrition^{and I:xcist:,ancl perused the materialon} record.

¶26

Learned counsel^{for the} Pctitioner^{submittedthat the above} stock of Alum^{wasseizedby respondent No'4and staff illegally and} the same is contrary^{to the provisions of the Telangana ExciseAct'} 1968. t-earned^{counsel submittcd that the petitioneris the owner of} 'M/s Bagal Mata Alum^{Kirana and Gcne ral Merchant'and he is doing} legal business^{in the sale of Alurnarrd other general items in the}

¶27

¶28

Premises bearing H.No.7-S_107/1, Medar Basthi, Kothagudem. The petitioner has GST Registration Certificate issued by the Deputy Tax officer, Kothagudem-Il dated w.06,2022. It is submitted that on 06.08.2024 at about 8.30 p.m., respondent No.4 along with staff broke open the lock of the business premises and seized g2 bags of Alum (each bag consisting of 50 kgs). It is submitted that rr,sporrdent No.4 has planted seventy eight (7g) bags in the house ot one Mr. Dcvi Kishan Ladda and crime was registered against Mr. Lakavath Ravi atdc C.O.R. No.311 of 2024 alteging that 7g bags of Alum l.ras been recovered from them. That during the course of invr.stil;ation in thc, said crime, the Police have illegally seized alum fror, tlrt: busi,ess prerrrises of the petitioner. Learned counsel suhmittcrj th.t Alunr/black jaggery is purchased legally and evidenceci tr' the biil books. Thus, the seizure of g2 bags of Alum (each bag consisting of 5O kgs) is illegal.

¶29

Learned Assistant Governrnent pleadcr for l,rohibition and Excise submitted that the petitioner cannot bypass tl_re renredy ava ilable to him under law. The petitioncr has to aprproacl_r respondent No'3 - the Deputy Comrnissioner of protrilrition and Excise Ilepartmult, Battepalli, Khana Puram,^Khammam Dislrict, for intcrim

I t

I I

.,)

release/release of the seized contraband. As per procedure, the sample of seized stock wL[ be sent to chemical analysis. The crime

¶34

IS registered under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the^'Ielangana Iixcise Act, 1968 and pending confiscation proceedings, it is premature for the petitioner to contend that he is doing legal business and he is entitled for the release of the seized contraband. Unless the samples are tested, it would not be appropria te to release the seized contraband. There is a presumption that possc'ssiorr o[ huge stocks of alum and black laggery is meant to be used for manufacture of lllicit Distilled Liquor (lD Liquor)

¶35

In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise that confiscation proceedings are pending, the samples o[ seized contraband are^{sent for} chemical analysis and the test report is awaited, this Court is^not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶36

[n view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach responclcnt No.3 by filing appropriate application seekirrg interim releasc/ releasc of^the seized

¶37

¶38

¶39

contraband and on such application being filed, respondent No.3 shall

¶40

pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) week

¶41

thereof. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

¶43

in this writ petition, stand closed.

¶44

SD/. K. AMMAJI

¶45

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE COPY' seJloru oFFtcER

¶47

To, 1 The Principal Secretary to Government,^{Revenue(Excise) Department,} Telangand Secretariat, State^{of Telangana, Hyderabad}

¶48

2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and^{ExciseDepartment, Prohibitionand} Eiie Corpr.i. Aburi Bhavan,^{NampallyStitionRoad,Nampally Road,} Hyderabad

¶49

a aJ_ The Deputy Commissioner, of Prohibition^{and Excise Department,Ballepalli'} Khanapuram, Khammam District The Prohibition and Excise^{lnspector,Kothagudem, Telangana}

¶50

5 One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO^{MADIRAJU.Advocate.} [OPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION^EXCtSf ,^{High Court for the Stateof} Telangana. [OUTI

¶51

1. Two CD Copies.

¶52

BSK LS I

HIGH COURT

DATED:22110t2024

HE Sr4 I6:
(
oo 0I JAil 2025
.+
-o
*
o53;c,a rC.,"

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.29124 of 2024

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

elo"* f---

Guguloth Bujji v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guguloth Bujji 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

Kommana Tejaswi Vs Union of India

Ms. Shalini Sood Awasthi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions Vs Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Flamed Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Devasoth Hanuma, Vs The State of Telangana