High Court · 2025

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 herein in causing interference with the business activities of the petitioner and threatening to stop the sale of the white jaggery to the customers by making the excise constables to sit in his shop, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith stop deputing his constables to sit in the business premises of the premises viz-, Daduram Sathyaram Trading Company;16-3 -17 4, Pedda Bazar, Gopalraopet Market, Kothagudem. 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 pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 herein not to interfere with the day-to-day business activities of the petitioner in his premises viz., harasS the petitioner by interfering with his business viz., Daduram Sathyaram Trading Company, # 6-3-174, Pedda Bazar, Gopalraopet Market, Kothagudem, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER R ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ ition No.10820 ot 2O25 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 2nd respondent is causing interference in the business activity of the petitioner and threatening him to stop the sale of white jaggery to customers by deputing the 2nd respondent-Constable to sit in front of the petitioner,s shop, thereby, preventing him from conductlng his business, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutiona l.

3. It is also further contended by the petitroner that the sale of white jaggery is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner and inasmuch as the petitioner is conducting the trade in the white jaggery by obtaining necessary permission/permissions from the concerned authorities, like trade licence, registration from the concerned authorities, and as such, the conduct of business cannot be held to be illegal by the respondents- authorities. ; i I i I ; I I I , l 2

4. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.31519 of 2016 dt.tg.04.2022.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for- Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 2 submits that though dealing in white jaggery is not prohibited, but the same is regulated by GUR (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 (for short, "the GUR Regulation"), whereunder the petitioner, who is a dealer in GUR, is required to maintain accounts of the stocks of purchase or sales made by him.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that under the GUR Regulation, the authorities are also empowered to seize such GUR in respect of which the authorities suspect that the provisions of Clause III of the GUR Regulation have been contravened.

7. Learned Government Pleader also submits that since the petitioner is dealing in large quantity of GUR without following the procedure under the GUR Regulation, the authorities have registered five cases against him, and in one case, for breach of the bond executed by him, the petitioner has also paid penalty of Rs.75,000/-. B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. .4. ' r)

9. This Court in W.P.No.31519 of 2016 dealing with similar case concerning black jaggery, taking note of the decision of this Couft in Ganesh Traders (Kirana and General Merchants) Dhermapuri, Karimnagar District v/s, District Collector, Karimnagar and otherl , had noted that the manufaclure and sale of black jaggery of any kind either by the manufacturers or by traders is not prohibited under any law in the State of Telangana.

10. This Court in the aforesaid case further noting that however noble the intention of the State Government may be to eradicate manufacture and sale of ID Liquor may appear, that by itself would not confer any power on authorities to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner under the guise of implementing the decision taken by the respondent- State or the authorities, without adhering to due process of law.

11. In the aforesaid case, this Court further held that inasmuch as sale of black jaggery by a trader is neither prohibited nor regulated in any manner, the authorities under the guise of stopping manufacture and sale of ID liquor cannot intefere with the conduct of business of a trader who has been granted valid permissions/reg istrations for conduct of such business. 'zooz (r) nio fit (ro) 4

12. Thus, this Court holding as above held that action of the respondents-a uthorities in intedering with the conduct of business by obtaining necessary permission/sa nction cannot be held to be illegal for the authorities to interfere with such business activity of the petitioner therein and such interference by the authorities is in contravention of Articles 14, 19(t Xq) and 21 of the Constitution of tndia.

13. In the facts of the present case also, as it is not shorvn to this Court of dealing in white jaggery being regulated or restricted. Since, the petitioner claims to be carrying on the business in trading white jaggery, the respondents-a uthorities merely on the pretext of said GUR being used in manufacture and sale of ID liquor cannot seek to interfere with the conduct of the business of the petitioner. It is for the respondent-State to frame rules and regulations, if the State is of the view that the aforesaid GUR is only meant for manufacture and sale of ID liquor, which the State intends to eradicate.

14. Further, it is also not shown to this Court that the respondents_ authorities issuing any notice to the petitioner calling upon him to maintain the details of the stocks purchased and sale of GUR by him as prescribed under the GUR Regulation for them to initiate action against the petitioner. { 5

15. In the absence of the respondents-authorities failing to discharge their duties in implementing the GUR Regulation, this Coutt is of the view that the action of the respondents-a uthorities in seeking to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner and the carrying on of the business cannot be held to be as valid or justified action for this Couft to sustain the same.

16. Despite this Couft in the aforesaid order, vide W.P.No.31519 of 2016, having directed the respondents-authorities not to interfere with the legal trade being carried on by the petitioner, except in accordance with law, or till such time, the said activity of sale is not otherwise prohibited by the State and more than three years having gone by, no action has been taken till date and on the other hand, the respondents-authorities continue to persist with their action of interfering with the conduct of business which is without any authority/sa nction of law.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and a Writ of Mandamus is issued declaring the action of the rcspondents-a uthorities and their subordinates in interfering with the petitioner's personal life, liberty and business as being illegal and arbitrary, as well as legal trade being carried on, except in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 6

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// 'D/-N..HANDRA D .EKHAR ry REGISTRAR To, Kothagudem District. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretarv, Revenue (Excise) Department, State of Telangana, 2' The Station House officer, Kothagudem proh. and Excise station, Bhadradri 3. One CC to SRt S. PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OpUC] 4 fqo CCs to Gp for frglrlO.ition & Excise, High Court for the State of 5. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] MP BS #l "'fifirry{:aE&aa8*" - i -+ --- i?{f l,: .t r,.4l}l t - -i::.li,rrL ;;-d-- HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 /.4.,'.-:,tt\i 30 APfl ?tils \ t O,:S n I,f ? ). ,r ORDER WP.No.10820 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1, >o