Writ petition challenged a Special Executive Magistrate's show cause notice proposing a Rs. 50,000 penalty under a bond. Respondents submitted the bond period had lapsed and no further proceedings were pending. The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the lis did not survive.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
13217 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO:7106 OF 2017
Between:
Smt. Rekha Bai, Wo. Kishore Singh, aged 36 years, Occ: Daily Labour, R/o. H.No. 13-1-47112, Doodh Khana, Dilawargunj, Upper Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the order in MC.8.1173212015 dated: 1 5-02-2017 passed by the Special Exec[tive Magistrate, Hyderabad District, in directing to pay an amount ofpenalty of Rs. 50,000/- or show cause why the petitioner should not be enforced against the petitioner is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 8722OF 20171
Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay of
all furtherproceedings in order Mc.Bl1732l2oi6 dated: 1s-02-2o17 passed by the Special Execu:ive Magistrate, Hyderabad District.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRIp. PRABHAKAR REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY,
AGP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI ARUN KUMAR, AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PEIITION No.71O6 OF 2Ol7
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an order or direction more particalarlu one in the nature of writ of mandamus declarinq that the order in MC.B./ 1732/2015 dated 15.02.2017 passed bu ttrc Special Executiue Maoi.strate, Huderabad District, in directinq to pau an amount of penaltu of Rs. 50,OOO/ - or show cause whA th.e petitione.r should not be enforced aqainst the pettttoner is highlg arbitrary, bad and illegal and pass..."
2
respond()nts not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugne,d show cause notice. In view of the said interim protection, counsel for the petitioner prays for passing appropr:ate orders.
J
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if aoy, shall stand
closed.
To
//TRUE COPY/
SD/. L. VIJAYALAXMI ASSISTANTREG
SECTIONOFFICER
cl
I
t
MIP
PVL NF
{ I 1 I
HIGH COURT
DATED i2310912025
lr1tr ir;
"'l
?_ 1t FIB 2tl26
ORDER
WP.No.7106 of 2017
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
aj'(
u\J,'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the show cause notice proposing a Rs. 50,000 penalty under an executed bond was arbitrary and illegal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Rekha Bai
The State of Telangana, Home Department, Rep. by its Secretary
Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad District
Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station Dhoolpet, Hyderabad
N.Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
