Andhe Akhil v. I The State of Telangana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly this u'rit petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner claims to be owner of Maruthi Ertiga bearing No.TS 02 UE 1015 and that on 13.08.2025, when respondent No.6 is conducting vehicle check at Basara, the petitioner's vehicle drove by one B.Ganesh…
- Para 66. Accordingly this u'rit petition is disposed of Misceilaneousapplications, ifanypending, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' SDL P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGBTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Adilabad District. Telangand, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad
Judgment
Cause title
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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not receiving the explanation on the notice dated 22.09.2025 by the petitioner is illegal, and against to principles of natural justice and in violation of Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act 201 5 and rules made there under and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner vehicle name Maruthi Ertiga Car vide Registration No. TSo2UE'1015 and receive the petitioner explanation on the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 22.O9.2025. F 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 m:ry be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner vehicle name IVIaruthi E(iga Car vide Registration No. TS02UE1015 and receive the petitioner exp,l:rnation on the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 22.09.2025 forthwith pending di-.;posat of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: ASST. cp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KT,IMAR WRIT PEf,mON No.33596 of 2O25
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the lollowing prayer: ".. -declaring the action of 3"t respondent in not receiuing the explanation on the notice dated 22.09.2025 bg the petitioner is ilLegal and against the principles of naturaL justice and in uiolation of Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act, 2015 and rules made thereunder and fundamental ights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequentlA direct the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner uehicle name Maruthi Ertiga Car uide Registration No.TS O2 UE 10 15 and receiue the petitioner explanation on the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 2 2. O 9. 2 02 5. . . "
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.S. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal. Notice to respondent No.6 is hereby dispensed with.
The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner claims to be owner of Maruthi Ertiga bearing No.TS 02 UE 1015 and that on 13.08.2025, when respondent No.6 is conducting vehicle check at Basara, the petitioner's vehicle drove by one B.Ganesh waq-fqgnd carrying 10 bottles of local liquor each 750 2 m1., and accordingly, respondent No.6 seized t he vt:hicle along with liquor bottles and handed over to resp,.tttdeut No.4 on
Oa.2025 ukle COR.No.224 12025. lt is submrtr.ed that on the complaint loclgcd b-v respondenl No.6, t't spotrdct'tt No.5 registered a crimc in FlIt No.1 18/2025 cl:r cd 13.O8.2025 Learned counsel further submits that responclent No.3 issued sholr' cause notice dated 22.09.2025 to show c;ruse within 15 day's .1s to q,hy the petitioner's property shouLld not be confiscated. Subsequently, petitioner approa<'hed respondent No.3 and submrtted repl.1, to the show ci:use notice on
37.1O.2025. Ho$,cver, the same r,r,as rejectecl b-y respondent authorities for nol receiving the reply on time. Questioning the same, the present r.r'rit petition is filed.
Learned Assistant Ciovernment Pieader-. on instructions, would submit that thc petitioner's explanatron c ate d 31. 10.2025 would be considercd and appropriate orders b: passed to that effect
In that view ol the matter, this writ pclition is disposed of directing respor-rdent No.3 to consider the e>rplalatior-r of the petitioner datcd 31.1O.2025 and pass appropri:rte orders strictly 3 in accordance to law within a period of two (2) n'eeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'
Operative part
Accordingly this u'rit petition is disposed of Misceilaneousapplications, ifanypending, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs' SDL P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGBTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Adilabad District. Telangand, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad
The Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, The State of 2. The Di;trict Prohibition and Excise Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District' 5. ff," D"priy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad Division, +. tnrilnip"itor Piohibition and Excise, Bhainsa Station, Bhainsa, Adilabad s. ine Station House Officer, Basar P.S., Basar Nirmal, Nirmal District' 6. One CC to SRI AMBEDKAR DUNNA, Advocate tOPUql T.TwoCCstoGPFORPROHIBITION&EXCISE,HighCourtfortheStateot a. fwo iCl to Gp fbn HOME, High Court lor the State of Telangana' [oUTl 9. Two CD Copies Telangana. [OUTI District. BN HIGH COURT DATED:071'1112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.33696 of 2025 ) 1l) a-.) [( ( Crl4' 1 I iiili 2[25 -k '--,^ -^.)\'. '";\'.)'',' . -.- -----.i." { 7 ( .ir,i // .\l *,:' :r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \a q
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly this u'rit petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act, 2015.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.