Dismissed¶25

Vaddalapu Radamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Apr 2025WP/12260/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ withdrawal; dismissed as withdrawn without costs; Article 226 mandamus; Articles 14 and 21; excise licence cancellation; Prohibition and Excise Department Telangana; Deputy Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Khammam; Cr. No. 79/2025/P; licence No. 03/2006-2007 dated 02-07-2006; Section 151 CPC interim suspension application; Vaddalapu Radamma v. State of Telangana; T. Vinod Kumar J.; 23 April 2025; no merits adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition granted at petitioner's request; no substantive relief; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions directed to stand closed. ¶25

Vaddalapu Radamma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the writ petition granted at petitioner's request; no substantive relief; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions directed to stand closed.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No. 3 in issuing orders vide Cr. No. 79/2025/P and Ex/A2 dated 04-03-2025 cancelling the petitioner's licence No. 03/2006-2007 dated 02-07-2006, in spite of the petitioner's explanation dated 01-03-2025, is illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (Raised in the prayer; not decided on merits as the petition was withdrawn.)

¶15

Ratio / Principle

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought the Court's permission to withdraw the Writ Petition, and the Court granted such permission.

¶23

Key takeaways

Granting permission as sought for, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.ratio¶39
As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), W.P. No. 12260 of 2025, decided 23-04-2025 by T. Vinod Kumar J. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21, the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam (respondent No. 3) in issuing orders vide Cr. No. 79/2025/P and Ex/A2 dated 04-03-2025 cancelling her licence No. 03/2006-2007 dated 02-07-2006, passed despite her explanation dated 01-03-2025. An interlocutory application under Section 151 CPC sought suspension of those orders. When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition; the Court granted it, dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn with no order as to costs, and directed that pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. The merits of the challenge to the licence cancellation were not examined.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF APRIL . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12260 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vaddalapu Radamma, W/o Late Yakaiah, aged 69^years, occ. business,^Rl/o H.No. 10-3-71 , Bus Depot road, Burhanpuram, Khammam

¶9

...'ET'TIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Excise^Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner, Prohibition and excise, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Khammam^division, Khammam district.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court^{may be} pleased to.issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No. 3 in issuing^ordersvide Cr. No. 79l2O25lP and ExlA2 Dt. 04-03-2025 thereby cancelling^{the 28 license} issued to the petitioner vide licence No. 03i2006-2007, Dt. 02-07'2006^{in spite of} the explanation of the^petitioner Dt. 01-03-2025 as^{illegal,arbitrary, unfair, unjust} and unconstitutional and in violation of articles^{1.4 and 21 of the Constitution of} lndia and consequently set aside the orders vide Cr.^{No.79l2O25lP and ExlA2 Dt.} O4-O3-2O25 cancellihg the licence No. 03/2006-2007,^{Dt. 02-07-2006.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 15.1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed- in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to} suspend the orders^passed by respondent No. 4 Dt.^{04-03-2025in Cr.No.} 79l2O25lP and Ex/A2.

¶18

Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRI KANDALA^{SlRl VENNELA} Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR^{PROHIBITION EXCISE}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THT' B ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶21

W.P.No. 12260 of 2O2S

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Wher the r,-.atter is taken up for hearing, learne d cc unsel for the petitiorer st J<s permission of the Court to withcritw the Writ Petition.

¶24

2 . Granl.ir-- g : ermission as sought for, the Wri L p( ,tition is

¶25

dismissed ils ,n, it r,:lrawn. No order as to costs

¶26

a Conseqrr:r t15., miscelianeous petitions, if any, F,ending shall

¶27

stand closed

¶28

SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPU-TY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SEC:TlO& OFFICER

1 One CC to SRI l(,l,NDALA SlRl VENNELA,^Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP F )R PROHIBITION EXCISE,^{High Court fo'theState of} Telangana, at llyr erabad. [OUTI

¶33

3 Two CD Copies PSK. LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:23104,ti1025

ORDER

WP.No.12260 <:f 2025

1tt E S I..\r. 7e)'
a
q (.
-) r,!i<br>22 r{AY m c i, ll
{.
'/.
L /,/
F,S!l
J;12'