Allowed

Devakishan Ladda v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/10820/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A trader challenged excise constables being posted at his shop selling white jaggery. The Court held sale of white jaggery is neither prohibited nor shown to be regulated, interference violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and allowed the writ petition with a mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus declaring respondents' interference with petitioner's life, liberty and legal trade illegal and arbitrary; no costs.

Devakishan Ladda Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10820 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Devakishan Ladda, s/o Megharaj Ladda^{aged about 75 years,occ'Business-Prop.} M/s Daduram Sathya Rari Trabing^{Companyr/o D.No. 6-3-174, Pedda Bazar,} Gopalrao Market Koihagudem, Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.}

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Tetangana, rep. by its^{Principal Secretary, Revenue(Excise)} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Station House Officer, Kothagudem^{Proh.and ExciseStation, Bhadradri} Kothagudem District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,^{more particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring^{the actionof the respondent No. 2} herein in causing interference with the^{business activitiesof the petitioner and} threatening to stop the sale of the^{whitejaggery to the customers by making the} excise constables to sit in his shop, as^{being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and} unconstitutional and consequently^{direct the2ndrespondentto forthwith stop} deputing his constables to sit in the^{business premisesof the premisesviz-,} Daduram Sathyaram Trading Company;16-3^{-17 4, Pedda Bazar, Gopalraopet} Market, Kothagudem.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

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 Respondent No.2 herein not to interfere with the day-to-day business activities of the petitioner in his premises viz., harasS the petitioner by interfering with his business viz., Daduram Sathyaram Trading Company, # 6-3-174, Pedda Bazar, Gopalraopet Market, Kothagudem, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

i I ; I I I , l

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶22

Writ ition No.10820 ot 2O25

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶25

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 2nd respondent is causing interference in the business activity of the petitioner and threatening him to stop the sale of white jaggery to customers by deputing the 2nd respondent-Constable to sit in front of the petitioner,s shop, thereby, preventing him from conductlng his business, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutiona l.

¶26

It is also further contended by the petitroner that the sale of white jaggery is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner and inasmuch as the petitioner is conducting the trade in the white jaggery by obtaining necessary permission/permissions from the concerned authorities, like trade licence, registration from the concerned authorities, and as such, the conduct of business cannot be held to be illegal by the respondentsauthorities.

¶27

¶28

In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.31519 of 2016 dt.tg.04.2022.

¶29

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for- Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 2 submits that though dealing in white jaggery is not prohibited, but the same is regulated by GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 (for short, "the GUR Regulation"), whereunder the petitioner, who is a dealer in GUR, is required to maintain accounts of the stocks of^purchase or sales made by him.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader further submits that under the GUR Regulation, the authorities are also empowered to seize such GUR in respect of which the authorities suspect that the provisions of Clause III of the GUR Regulation have been contravened.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader also submits that since the^petitioner is dealing in large quantity of GUR without following the^procedure under the GUR Regulation, the authorities have registered five cases against him, and in one case, for breach of the bond executed by him, the petitioner has also paid penalty of Rs.75,000/-.

¶32

B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶33

.4.^' r)

¶34

This Court in W.P.No.31519 of 2016 dealing with similar case concerning black^jaggery, taking note of the decision of this Couft in Ganesh Traders (Kirana and General Merchants) Dhermapuri, Karimnagar District v/s, District Collector, Karimnagar and otherl , had noted that the manufaclure and sale of black^jaggery of any kind either by the manufacturers or by traders is not prohibited under any law in the State of Telangana.

¶35

This Court in the aforesaid case further noting that however noble the intention of the State Government may be to eradicate manufacture and sale of ID Liquor may appear, that by itself would not confer any power on authorities to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner under the guise of implementing the decision taken by the respondentState or the authorities, without adhering to due process of law.

¶36

In the aforesaid case, this Court further held that inasmuch as sale of black^jaggery by a trader is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner, the authorities under the guise of stopping manufacture and sale of ID liquor cannot intefere with the conduct of business of a trader who has been granted valid permissions/reg istrations for conduct of such business.

¶37

'zooz^(r) nio fit^(ro)

¶38

¶39

Thus, this Court holding as above held that action of the respondents-a uthorities in intedering with the conduct of business by obtaining necessary permission/sa nction cannot be held to be illegal for the authorities to interfere with such business activity of the petitioner therein and such interference by the authorities is in contravention of Articles 14, 19(t Xq) and 21 of the Constitution of tndia.

¶40

In the facts of the present case also, as it is not shorvn to this Court of dealing in white jaggery being regulated or restricted. Since, the petitioner claims to be carrying on the business in trading white jaggery, the respondents-a uthorities merely on the pretext of said GUR being used in manufacture and sale of ID liquor cannot seek to interfere with the conduct of the business of the petitioner. It is for the respondent-State to frame rules and regulations, if the State is of the view that the aforesaid GUR is only meant for manufacture and sale of ID liquor, which the State intends to eradicate.

¶41

Further, it is also not shown to this Court that the respondents_ authorities issuing any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to maintain the details of the stocks purchased and sale of GUR by him as prescribed under the GUR Regulation for them to initiate action against the petitioner.

¶42

¶43

{

¶44

In the absence of the respondents-authorities^{failingto discharge} their duties in implementing the GUR Regulation,^{this Coutt is of the view} that the action of the respondents-a uthorities^{in seeking to interfere with} the life and liberty of the^petitioner and the^{carrying on of the business} cannot be held to be as valid or^justified action^{for this Couftto sustain} the same.

¶45

Despite this Couft in the aforesaid order,^{vide W.P.No.31519of} 2016, having directed the respondents-authorities^{not to interfere with the} legal trade being carried on by the^{petitioner, except in accordancewith} law, or till such time, the said activity of sale^{is not otherwise prohibited} by the State and more than three^{years having gone by, no actionhas} been taken till date and on the other hand, the^{respondents-authorities} continue to persist with their action of interfering^{with the conductof} business which is without any authority/sa^{nctionof law.}

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition^is allowed^and a Writ^{of Mandamusis} issued declaring the action of the^{rcspondents-authorities and their} subordinates in interfering with the^{petitioner's personal life, libertyand} business as being illegal and arbitrary, as well as^{legal trade beingcarried} on, except in accordance with law. No order^{as to costs.}

¶47

¶48