High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articte 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rireo frerewittr,"the High court may be pteased to issue any writ, order or direction .or" Ju.tl.rr.riy one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by setting aside th_e irprgnuo ord"; ;;:* cause of respondent no 2, dated 21-03-2025 in MC NO Zieaozi i" c.ci.n'rrro 2gr2o25 0f Excise p.s Miryalguda, Nargonda Dist as the same is ,sui"rid" principres of naturar justice lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Seciion -15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, irr-i fiJt court may be preased to stay the operation of the impugned order or .no* nJtice dated 21-03-2o2s of 2nd respondent passed in M.c No. 21Bt2o2s in c.o.R no-29t2025, penoing Ji;po-;ar'or main writ petition ""rrE Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. GUGULOTHU KANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCTSE The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.163O3 oF 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 and perused the record. With tl-re consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of zrdmission.

2. This Writ Petition is liled seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of 2"d respondent in issuing show cause notice in MC. No.218 of 2025 dated 21.O3.2025 directing the petitioner herein to pay penalty of Rs. 1,0O,OO0l or show cause within seven days as to why the petitioner should not be adjudged for imprisonment until such bond period expires.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that though the impugned proceeding is termed as notice of forfeiture of bond of good behaviour issued under Section 141(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNSS), the same in fact has adjudged the petitioner as having committed breach of the bond; and that the 2

3.d respcndent pursuant to the aforesaid proceeding is visiting the petitLoner's house to take into custody the petitioner, for being serLt to jail on the basis of the aforesaid proceeding.

4. Petitioner further contends that though the impugned proceedirrg is dated 21.03.2025, the same was served on her much lat,rr; and that the petitioner immediately on being servecl with the aforesaid proceeding had submitted her explanation on

20.05.20115 by scnding the explanation through rcgistered posr on 21.O5.2025.

5. Petitioner further contends that though the petitioner had submittec. her explanation to the impugned proceeding, as of date no adjudication has been done by the 2.a respondent by recording rcasons as to why the explanation submitted bv the petitioner is not acceptable.

6. On :ehalf of the petitioner it is contended that this Court in simiiar circumstances by orders passed in W.p. No.1521g of 2021 and W.P. No.7869 of 2016 was pleased to set aslde the proceedingg, and thus prays for similar relief.

7. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of resporidents on the other hand submits that the impugned proceeding is only a show cause notice to which the 3 petitioner is required to submit explanation and that . the authority by considering the aforesaid explalation would pass orders

8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the impugned proceeding is only a show cause notice, the pe[itioner cannot seek to assail the same by the present Writ Petition.

9. Insofar as reliance placed on the decisions of this Court are concerned, learned Government pieader submits in aii those Writ Petltions, challenge was made to the orders passed by the authorities concerned invoking the surety bond executed, without putting the petitioner on notice or issuing a show cause notice prior to the bond being invoked.

10. Learned Govcrnment Pleader further submits that since in the fac[s of the present case the impugned proceeding itself is termed as notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause r,r,i thin seven days as to why the petitioner shtruld not be adjudged for imprisonment until the bond period expired, the petitioner cannot claim of being aggrieved by issuance of such notice. 11 I have taken notice of the respective contentions urged. 4

12. Th;s Court in W.p. No.27479 ot 2022 by its order dated

30.06.2022 considering the order of the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P. No.152 1a of 2O2l and W.p. No.7869 of 2016 had held thal the aforesaid order would n9t bs applicable as the proceedir: g under challenge is show cause notice vvhereby the noticee was called upon to file objections to the proposed action. Further, ,his Court in the aforesaid decision taking note of the fact that the impugned proceeding is shorrv cause notice, thc petitioner is to be relegated to file objections to the impugned proceeding r.e., show cause notice before the 2,d respondent. This Court in the aforesaid dccision in accordanct: with larv after the petitioner therein filing objections directed the respondent authoritie s to pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal tLearing.

13. Since, in the facts of thc present case the petitioner claims of having been issued notice by the impugned proceeding dated 21.(t3.2025 and also having submitted expianation dated 20.O5.2O2;j sent by registered post on 2l.OS.2O2S, this Court is of the view that the 2nd respondcnt authority is to be directed to consider ttre explanation submitted by the petitioner herein and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, after affording an opportuniqr' of personal hearing to lhe petitioner and by 5 communicating the order to the petitioner Only upon ti're 2,d respondent passing the order by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the impugned proceeding, the respondent authority can take further action. -Till such time the 2"d respondenL passes order by granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, no coercive action shall be taken in terms of the impugned order which a dmittedly is only a show cause notice

14. Subject to rhe disposecl of. No costs. above direction, the Writ petition 1S Miscellaneous petitions, if any, Petition, shall stand closed. pending in the Writ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER '1. The Principal Secretary Prohibltion and Excise Department, Hyderabad 2. The Tahasildar cum Executive Magistrate, Damaracharra Mandar, Nargonda Dist The S.H.O prohibition and Excise station, Miryalguda, Nalgonda Dist. One CC to SRl. GUGULOTHU KANTHA RAO Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR PROH|BIT|ON EXCTSE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies 3 5 o KKS PVL W { HIGH COURT DATED:1 610612025 ORDER WP.No.16303 of 2025 29 [u$ 106 C) .1, <o r rl: tr .__--z ',: DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 \tr + $