Tyger Capital Pvt Ltd v. I The State of Telangana

Sri Shamala Karthik(Owner of the vehicle), Sio N,4arreddy Rl/o 5-24-559 Chandragirigutta Gajularamaram, Quthubullapur, [\4edchal District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the Nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 3rd respondent in CR No 116Ot2O23lCPElEXlD1 dt 23-3-2024 and the orders of the 2nd respondent in CR No 232 of 20231P and E|BT dt 20-6-2023 confrrming the orders of the 3rd respondent & set aside the same by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to release the l/ahender Bollaro vehicle bearing No TSO8UJB l93 to the petitioner in the interest of justice ' :."::*1-*:1: 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 respondents to grant interim custody of the lt/ahender 3ollaro vehicle bearing No TSO8UJ8193 by suspending the operation of impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide CR No 232of 2O23lP&ElB7 dI20-6-2023 and the orders of the 3rd respondent in CR No 232of 20231P&E/87 dt 23-3-2024 fonhwith in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PROHIB TION EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ;WY' ..-.i.. ./ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.2OO79 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, learned Government Pieader for Home appearing for respondent No.4, and with their consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition ald the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 5th respondent herein had approached the petitioner and availed financial assistance for purchase of goods carriage vehicle i.e., Mahendra Bollaro PIK-UP Vehicle bearing No.TS 08 UJ 8193; and that in order to secure the aforesaid finance extended, the subject vehicle has been hypothecated in favour of the petitioner r'"-1 2 4 . It is the further contention of the 1>etitioner that the unofficial respondent No.5, who had availed fina.ncial assistance, had involved the suhject vehicle in commission of a crime, r,n hich is registered as FIR No.Z2/2023, dt.16.04 2023, under the provisions of Section 34(e) of the Excise Act, 1968; that the respondents_authorities have seized the subject Vehicle in connection with the aforesaid crime; that since, rhe subject vehicle is hypothecated in favour of the petitioner, the respondents_ authorities do not have the power to confiscate flre subject vehicle; and thus, the authorities ought to have handecl over the subject vehicle ro rhe petirioner 5 Per contra, Iearned Government pleader for proh & Excise appearing for respective respondents would submit that the subject vehicle is registered in the name of th(_, 6th respondent herein as owner and is shown as under hypothecation with the petitioner herein.

6. Learned Government pleader would further submit that the subject vehicle is involved in commission of cri.le for carrying black jiggery ald alumn without having va_lid documents, the authorities have initiated proceedings under Sectron 34(e) of the -: ...:**: I '.iw_,-._r:.4.._. ..7 3 Excise Act, 1968, initially by seizing the subject vehicle and thereafter by ordering for confiscation in terms of Section 42 of the Act 7 . Learned Government Pleader further submits that it is only the owner, who can seek release of the subject vehicle for interim custody by approaching the respondents-authorities pending adjudication of the proceedings, and since, the petitioner is not the owner of the subject vehicle, it has no locus standi to maintain the present Writ Petition.

8. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

9. Admittedly, the subject vehicle, which is seized by the respondents-authorities, 1S registered in the name of the 6th respondent though was under hypothecation with the petitioner, for the financial assistance extended to the 6th respondent for purchase of the said vehicle, as security for repayment of the said financial assistance extended.

10. Further, it is to be noted that since, the petitioner had only extended financial assistance to the 6th respondent under hypothecation egreement, which also contains a clause to recover l 1 4 the aforesaid amount/fina,cial assistarrce from the person, to whom such facility is extended, notwithstanding the condition of the vehicle or whether the said vehicle is used b1. him or not, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, who had only extended linancial assistance cannot seek to interfer:e.wi rh the action of the respondents_authorities in seizing the subject vehicle on account of the ovr.ner of the vehicle involving himself ir commission of a crime using the subject vehicle, and also cannot approach this court either questioning the action of the respondents-authorities in seizing the subiect vehicre for violation of thr: provisions of the Excise Act, 196g or for that matter claiming himself to be the owner. 1 1. It may not be out of piace to mention that when sales tax was sought to be levied on the sale of the securecl assets by the finalce companj/, it was contended on behalf of the finance company that the sub-ject vehicle stands in the name of the owner and the saie is being made for ancl on behalf of r_he owner on the basis of the authorization given by the borrower at the time of availing financial assistance to recover the amount by seliing the vehicle by way of repossession, in the event of non_payment of 5 installments thereunder and to appropriate the sa_le proceeds towards the loan amount/financial assistance advarce dfSee: M/s Sundaram Finq.nce Ltd,, u, The State of Keralatl.

12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition as filed is misconceived ald is thus, liable to be dismissed

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to I4 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shali stand closed. To ,TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT RE J:I*O* SECTW OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. CH SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Couii foi- the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 4 KKS TKS Two CD Copies o ' rsoo 1rz1 src ass HIGH COURT DATED:1 410712025 ORDER WP.No.20079 of 2025 l ItlE S ,')t- s I I t. 10 5[P 2025 * o Fs r,,, .) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS &