Saiith Shaik v. 1. The DePu

s Nukala Srikanth, S/o Sailu, Age Malor -' Amangal, Mahbubabad. Telangana' Major. Occ. Driver, Rl/o Amangal Occ. Business. R/o Door No' 2-10, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ' Order or Direction' more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the 1st Respondents impugned Notice Dated 21-11-2024 issued under Section 13 (A) of T's Prohibition Act' 1995/46 (A) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968' after seizing the Petitioners 4-wheeler Mahindra Bolero Pick-up Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing Registration No.TS24T0490on19-07-2023,asillegal,arbitrary'discriminatoryandinclear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to release and deliver the subject vehicle to the Petitioner' lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 preased to direct the 1st Respondent to consider rereasing and derivering the 4-wheerer 'Mahindra Bolero pick-up Goods carriage vehicre, bearing Registration No.TS 24 T 0490 to the petitioner pending disposar of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pOLALI VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, AGP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSI]N REDDY WRIT PETITION N0.6087 0F 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal, in issuing the impugned notice in Cr.No.47512023/P&ElB7 dated 21'll'2024 under Section l3(A) of the Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 (for short'Act 1995')/Section 46(A) of the Telangana Excise Act 1968 (for shon'Act 1968') after seizing the vehicle of the petitioner i'e'' Mahindra Bolero Pick-up Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No'TS- 24-T-O4}O in connection with Crime No'114 of 2023 of Nellikudur Police Station, as being illegal and arbitrary'

2. Heard Mr. P. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner' and Mr, M. Arun Kumar, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise.

3. ln the impugned show-cause notice issued by respondent No.l, it is stated that vehicle of the petitioner i'e', Mahindra Bolero Pick-up Goods Carriage vehicle bearing No'TS-24-T-0490 was seized under the cover of panchanama when it was found 2 :,. transporting twenty eight (28) quintals of Black Jaggery. fifty (50) Kgs of Alum and five (5) litres of I.D. Liquor. The accused was arrested and samples drawn from the seized cotrtraband were sent for chemical analysis. Petitioner was called upon in the impugned show-cause notice to explain as to why the sub-rect vehicle should not be confis,:ated.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitterl that the petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle and he has given the same on hire to respondent Nos.4 and 5 for their business purpose in January 2023 and on 19.07.2023, Police have seized the subject vehicle under the c,cver of panchanama in Crime No. I 14 o1- 2023 of Nellikudur P,clice Station. Petitioner did not have any knowledge of the case in Crime No.114 of 2023 registered against respondent No.4. Later, he came to know that the subject vehicle was confiscated by the order of respondent No.l in Cr.No.47 5/2023 lP &ElB7 dated 29.1 I .2023 witho ut any notice being issued to hirn. Petitioner approached this Court and tlled W.P. No.27140 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 15.l0.i1024, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available under law challenging the confiscation order. 3 Accordingly, the petitioner approached respondent No'1 claiming that he is the owner of the subject vehicle and he is not involved in Crime No.l14 of 2023 ' Thereafter' impugned notice was issued by respondent No.1 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the subj ect vehicle should not be confiscated' As the petitioner is no way concemed with the alleged offence in Crime No.l14 of 2023,the impugned show-cause notice is illegal' Further' the petitioner is ready to produce the subject vehicle as and when required for the purpose of investigation and during the trial'

5. Leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, having received written instructions from respondent No'1' submitted that writ petition is not maintainable' That instead of submitting explanation to the show-cause notice petitioner filed this writ petition without any legal basis' As petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject vehicle' despite confiscation order already being passed against the accused' show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice' It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned show- 6. cause notice is issued in violation of the provisions of the Act 1995' I I I i i I i I iI r': - .' .4, 4 the Act 1968 and is without jurisdiction. There is ran allegarion that subject vehicle of the petitioner was involved in Crime No.114 of 2023 of Nellikudur porice Station and seized while transporting contiaband me,tioned therein. petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference of this Coun in the impugned show_cause notice.

7. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disrnissed. petitioner is granted another ten (10) days of time to subm it explanation to the impugned shorv_cause notice issued by respondent No.I. On receipt of such explanation, respondent No.i shall pass orders within thirty (30) days thereof, by considering the ,:xplanation submitted by the petitioner. ln case, the petitioner does rot submit any explanation to the shou-cause notice, respondent No'l shall pass orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in rhe //TRUE COPY// SD/- N.RAJAGOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,="r,ilu OFFICER To

1. The Deputy Corrmissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division, Warangal, Telan,Jana. I /. \

2. One CC to SRI POLALI VENKATESH, Advocate IOPUCI 3 fryo ccs to GP FoR pRoHrBrroN EXCrsE, High court for the state of 4. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] a BSR PSK II I CC TODAY HIGH GOURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER WP.No.6087 of 2025 ,I r$€ 9rA rS l 3 r) 0 3 l{\i\ HZs c!i I n.. sF i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS )