Dhidigam Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Z ihe ffl:JnJit f'xecutive,^{Magistrate, Akkannapet Mandal,Siddip_etDistrict.} 5. iii;^{'$n6n-H-ousebnictr, Husnabadprohibition AND Excisestation,} Siddipet District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtma-y} -be pteasedtoissueanorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit ofMandamus,declaringtheactionofthe2ndrespondentinissuingthe ;p;g;;J Proceeding M.C.No.490/2025^{dated17 09 2025 directing the} p"iitl6n"t herein to^pay a^{penaltyof Rs. 1,00,000 within (7) days as being illegal'} arbitrary and in^{vioiationof Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and} consequently set aside^{the same} lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the HighCourt maybeple-a-s.edto} trrnt^{SfnV of all further proceeding in lmpugned Proceeding MC No 490/2025} iated 17.09.2025^{issued 6y the 2nd respondent, pending disposalof the main} Writ Petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. RAMULUPASUPULA} iounsel for the Respondents^{No.1and 2: AGp FORpROHtBlloN ExctsE} Counsel for the^{Respondent No.3: GP FORHOME} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶17

a

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSII IIAN

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.29251 OF ::025

¶20

ORAL ORDER:

¶21

Heard leamed counsel for the petitior t:: and learned Assistant Government Pleader for prohibition an, lxcise

¶22

Petitioner filed the present writ petition r:hallenging the notice dated 17.09.2025 in M.C.No.490 of 202 i of respondent No.2 directing the petitioner to pay penalty of t;.1,00,000/_ or show cause within seven (7) days from the date rl'receipt of the notice that why he shouid not be adjudged for im r:isonment until such bond period expires, as illegal.

¶23

Leamed Assistant Government pleader for {:,rohibition and Excise. on instructions, would submit that the [)etitioner was involved in COR No. 164 of 2025, dated 24.05.2 i.,4 pending on the file of Prohibition and Excise Station, Husnr bad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 34(a) a rrl 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. The allegation again.l him is illegal transportation o1'ID liquor. He was also invorve r in two other

¶24

-'l

¶25

2

¶26

crimes of the very same police Station vide COR No. 107 of 2025, dated 06.08.2025 and COR No.151 of 2025, dated 15.09.2025 for the offences under Section 7(A) read with Secrion 8(e) of the Telangana State Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 respectively and allegations are also same.

¶27

While so, on 11 .09.2025 notice for forfeiture of bond of good behavior was issued by respondent No.2 alleging that petitioner committed breach of bond by involving in an offence. The basis ofthe said notice is letter addressed by respondent No.3 informing involvement of petitioner in other crimes

¶28

5 From the reading of the impugned notice, it is seen that no prior opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his stand before ordering forfeiture of the amount furnished by him earlier That apart, the reason assigned for forfeiture is alleged involvement of the petitioner in two crimes. Mere involvement in a crime would not by itself constitute breach of bond fumished by the petitioner, as it cannot be treated on par with conviction.

¶29

I

¶30

3

¶31

Thus, on both counts i.e., on^{facts and in lar'. the impugned}

¶32

notice dated 17.09.2025 is unsustainable.^{Henc:. the impugned}

¶33

notice is liable to be set aside.

¶34