High Court · 2025

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Notice in Cr.No.267l2O18lPElB4, dt.19.02.2025 which was served to the petitioner in the 1't Week of March, 2025 stating that the 2nd Respondent directed the petitioner to produce the Mahendra Bolero Maxi Vehicle bearing Registration No. TS-'16-UA-7405 and failing which the 3rd Respondent trying to seize the Vehicle, without following due process of law and without there being authority of law as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the Provisions of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 and violative of Principles of natural Justice and Petitioner Rights Guaranteed Under Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently, direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to seize the Max Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-16-UA-7405. lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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 Nos.2 and 3 not to seize the t\rlax Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-16-UA-7405 on the file of the 3'd Respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Gp FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.II496 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l & 2 and learned Govemment Pleader lor Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, and perused the record. With the consent of leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up tbr hearing and disposal at admission stage 2 The case of the petitioner in briel- is that the 2'd respondent, by the issuing proceedings dated Nil-02-2025, has directed the petitioner to produce his Mahendra Bolero Maxi vehicle bearing Registration No.TS-16UA-7405 within 7 days in connection with F.I.R.No.135/2018 dated 13-07-2018 on the file of the 3'd respondent regis{.ered for the offences under the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968/Prohibition Act, I 995

3. It is the furlher case of the petitioner that though, the aforesaid proceeding refers to confiscation ordel dated 03 -02-2023, no such confiscation order has been served on petitioner titl date for the 2 - respondent authorities to issue the impugned pr.oceeding directing the petltloner to produce the subject vehicle. 4' Petitioner fufther contends that on the respondent authorities initially seizing the subject vehicle, he had approached tr.ris co,rr by filing writ Petition vide w.p.No.24629 of 201g, wherein an interirn order has been granted in favour of the petitioner directing release ol the subj ect vehicle.

5. [t is furlher contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 14-06-2019, permitting the respondent authorities to procecd with the conflscation proceeding, directed the authorities to take fufther actio, as warranted by law against petitioner in the confiscation proccedings.

6. It is further contended by the petitioner that in spite of this Court permitting the respondent authorities to proceed with confiscation proceedings, no such proceedings have been communicated to the petitioner till date and instead, he has been issued with the impugned proceeding making a reference to the alleged confiscation proceeding and calling upon the petitioner to produce the vehicle within 7 days, and thus, the impugned proceeding is contrary to the orcler of tl_ris 3 Court in W.P.No.24629 of 2018, and thereby the rcspondent authorities are to be directed not to insist the petitioner for production ol his vehicte pursuant to the aforesaid notice issued. l. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 would submit that on this Court disposing of W.P.No.24629 of 2018 by order dated 14-06-2019, the authorities have passed confiscation order dated 03-02-2023 and sent the same to his addless by Registered Post vide RN 184120657IN.

8. Learned Govemment Pleader for Prohibition and Excise would lurther submit that the Registered Post, under which the confiscation order was sent to the petitioner, has been retutned with postal endorsement 'No such address, retumed to sender', and since, the petitioner did not come forward to collect the confiscation order to assail the same, the confiscation order has attained finality, and for the said reason, the authorities have issued the present proceeding.

9. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

10. Though, the respondent authorities claim to have passed conflscation order dated 03-02-2023, it is not shown to this Couft th: 4 - said authorities having served the same on petitioner except claiming to have sent the same through Registered post. The respondent authorities, however, on the Registered post being rcturned with postal endorsernent "no such addressee, retumed to sender,,, ought to have taken steps to effect service of the said order in the manner knorvn to lau, i.e. either by serwing on the adult rnernber of the petitioner family or by serving the same by way of affixure as prescribed under the General Clauses Act.

11. If only the respondent authorities have taken steps to serve the confiscation o.der in the manner known to law, the petitioner cou lcl have availed the remedies open to him in law to assail the sarre.

12. Inasmuch as the respondents have failed to effecl service ol confiscation order on petitioner after passing the same on 03-02_2023, the said order remained unserued on petitioner and as such, the respondent authorities cannot claim the said order having attained finatity for them to take further steps calling upon the petitioner produce the vehicle within 7 days by issuing the impugned notice.

13. Since, the respondent authorities have failed to cornmunicate the confiscation order on petitioner, the respondent authorities cannot take 5 fufther acrion much less by issuing the impugned proceeding calling upon the petitioner to produce the subject vehicle within 7 days, and informing that faiture would result in the subject vehicle being seized by the authorities

14. '[hus, this Courr is of the view of that the impugned proceeding as issued by the 2"d respondent cannot be held to be validly issued fbr it to be sustained.

15. Accordingly, the irnpugned proceeding is set aside. However. libcrly is granted to the respondent authorities to comlnunicate the conflscation order to the petitioner in the manner known to law and tal<e f ufther steps thereafter in accordance with law. 16 Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs 11 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand olosed ,/TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKA RJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 3 erabad The PrinclPa I Secretary, Revenue (Excise) DePartm nt, Secretariat, at The h. and Excise, Warangal Division' Warangal 5tate of Telangana, HYd The DePutY Co District The Station Ho BhuPalaP ally District One CC to 4 Two CCs to GP for P 4 at HYd erabadtouTl 6. lwo uC to The GP fo Hvdera bad[oUT] O A- mmission er of Pro use Officer' Regonda Police Station' Jaya Shankar Babuj iTenneti, rohibition r Home, High Court for the State of Telangana' at oPUcl h Court for the State of Telangana' Advocate I Excise, Hig Sri HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 oi'' I ) 2 ti ltirY ZC?5 t oFsp t ri) > .- L) 2. ORDER WP.No.11496 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ D-a s