Disposed

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Jan 2026WP/37431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A wine-shop licensee challenged the excise authorities' seizing and sealing of its A4 and A4(B) liquor business premises on complaints from local individuals. The Court had earlier ordered unsealing and permitted proceedings after due notice. Following subsequent shifting-direction proceedings, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge them.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 23.12.2025 by separate writ petition; earlier interim order of unsealing stands; no order as to costs.

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines Vs State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[³²⁵⁵ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 37431 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy, S/o N. Venkata Reddy, Aged 56 years, Occ. Business, Office at D-No.1010, Nandikonda IVlunicipality, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

2 The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda District,^Telangana State.

¶15

4 The lnspector, Prohibition and Excise Department, Halia Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict.

¶16

( The Municipal Commissioner, Nandikonda Municipality, Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,} the^{High.Court maybe} pleased to issue Writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents^{more particularly, 3rd to Sth} respondents in seizing, sealing and forcibly^preventing the^{petitionerfrom} operating the petitioner's A4 and A4(B) Liquor business which^{was running with} the name and style of M/s. Nukala^Vidyasagar Reddy^{Wines locatedat. D-No.} 10't0, Nandikonda Municipality, Nalgonda^District, Telangana State^withoutthere being any^justifiable reason or cause^{on the premise that, the 5th respondenthad} addressed letter requesting the 3rd^{respondentto cancel} /^{remove the petitioner's}

¶19

wine shop license on the alleged^{ground that, certainccr rplaintshave been} received by the local individuals is being arbitrary,^{illegal, lerverse, colorable} exercise of powers, hostile discrimination, violation of^{principt s of natural justice,} contrary to Section 31 ,32,34 and 36 of the Telangana^{E:lr ise Act, 1968, and} Rules therein, besides being violation of Article 14 and 300-4^{r f the Constitution of} lndia and consequently direct the respondents, to forthwith emove^{seal, not to} interfere in the business operations of the^{petitioner'sA} I^{and A4(B)Liquor} business operations at licensed^premises, without following^{dtt, ' process of law.}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that in the cir,)^{imstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court ma'r le^{pleasedpleased} to direct the respondents, to remove seal and forthwith,ⁿ I to interfere^{in the} business operations of the^petitioner's A4 and A4(B) Liqt r r business^without following due process of Iaw.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents Nolto4: GP FOR PROHIBITIC 1 EXCISE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.S :

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KTIMAR

¶29

WRIT PEIITION No.37431 of 2o25 DATE OF ORDER: O5.OL.2O26

¶30

Between:

¶31

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy.

¶32

...Petitioner

¶33

AND

¶34

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Prohibition & D<cise Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad &^{4 Others.}

¶35

...Respondeuts

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed^questioning the action^of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in seizing,^sealing and^{forciblypreventing} the petitioner from operating^{the petitioner's ,A.4 and A.4 (B) liquor} business, which was running under the name and^{style of M/s.} Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines located at^DoorNo.1010, Nandikonda Municipality, Nalgonda District, Telangana^State.

¶38

\ -.**

¶39

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petiticr er and iearned Government pleader for prohibition & Excis : appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

¶41

3 This Court on OS. 12.2O2S passed the follcr .ing order:

¶42

"Hauing consid_ered the submissions and. euen as per the respondents authoities, notice u)as i: sued. on 02.12.2025 for shifting the eisting license c premises upon the representation of respondent No.S rLi hout there being ang material indicating proper seruice o." totice and euen sealed the premises, there appears pimo facie case for^{deliberation.}

¶43

In uieu.t of the ciratmstances, the respond.ent rt tthority i-s directed to unseal the premises fofthwith and , ,ermit the petitioner to proceed_ uith his business. Hot.t zuer, it is claifted that, mearuuhite, the respond_ent autl .t ities are at libertg to proceed. tuith the communicati, n dated 02.12.2025 in Crime No. t7S3/2O25/B afte ' proper sen-tice of notice anrl the opportunity to the peii ioners to explain bg placing related mateial and. lt11 passing appropriale order stricllA in accordance with lat L

¶44

t4. (Y?"" the matter ls taken up for hr: ring, learned Government pleader for Prohibition & Excise s rbmitted that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on (.,t ;.12.2025, the District Prohibition & Excise Officer, Nalgonda _ r: ipondent No.3 rssued proceedrngs uid.e proceedings No. l7S3/Z)25/B, dated 23.I2.2025 directing to shift the existing License pr :mises to new

¶45

premises within a week time from the date of^{receipt of the said} proceedings, as per the provisions of the Telangana Excise^Act ald Rules.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^{since the} proceedings have been issued by respondent^No.3, the^petitioner would challenge the proceedings dated 23.12.2025^{issued by} respondent No.3 by way of hling^{anotherwrit petition}

¶47

Recording the submissionS of learned^{counsel for the} petitioner and learned Government Pleader^{for Prohibition &} Excise, this Court deems it appropriate to^{grant liberty to the} petitioner to challenge the proceedings issued by^respondent No,3 dated 23.12.2025.

¶48

7 Accordingly, with the above observations,^{this writ petition} is disposed of. There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶49

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{applications ifany}

¶50

pending, in this petition, shall stand^closed.

¶51

SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI AS STANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Depa ent, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶56

The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶57

The District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

¶58

¶59

prohibition and Excise Department, Hati I Mandat, Natgonda

¶60

O l[ir[iP".tor, 5 The Municipar commissioner, Nandikonda Municiparity, r rargonda District. 6. One CC to SRt BONDEMPALLY RAMULU, Advocate t: pUCl 7. fwo CCs to Gp FOR PROH|BIT|ON EXCISE, High Cou r for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶61

1. Two CD Copies. BSK PSK

I /

HIGH COURT

DATED:05t0112026

GC TODAY

ORDER

WP.No.37431 of 2025

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

¶71

xb
b

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nukala Vidyasagar Reddy Wines v. 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

Sri. Boya Ramanjineyulu Vs The State of Telangana

Ashanna Vs State of Telangana

Hanumanthu Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Namishree Projects Vs The Asst. Director of Mines and Geology

Dommati Poshetti Vs The State of Telangana

Kasam Narayana Vs The State of Telangana