Telangana High Court
K. Rajkamal vs The State Of Telangana, on 1 August, 2022
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition No. 16529 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the order passed by
the 2nd respondent in Cr.No.35/2021/CPE/Ex/D1,
dt.25.06.2021, affirming the order of confiscation passed by the
3rd respondent, dt.17.11.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and to set
aside the same.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for Proh. & Excise appearing for
respondents and perused the record.
3. Petitioner contends that he is the owner of Honda Grazia
Motor Cycle bearing No.TS 22 D 7017, and the said vehicle was
initially seized by the 4th respondent on registering a case for
illegal transportation of ID liquor. Thereafter, the 3rd
respondent issued proceedings confiscating the subject vehicle
for being involved in commission of offence under Section 7(a)
read with 8€ of the T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of confiscation, petitioner had
filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent with a delay of 319
days.
5. The 2nd respondent by taking the said appeal of the
petitioner on record and affording an opportunity of hearing,
while noting that the subject vehicle was being used for
transporting ID liquor, which is prohibited in the State of
Telangana, thereby affecting State revenue and public health &
safety, held that there are no merits in the appeal and
accordingly dismissed the appeal.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the writ
averments, would submit that the petitioner had purchased the
subject vehicle on equated monthly installments and would
suffer loss financially for non-usage of the subject vehicle, and
prayed to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned
order of 2nd respondent affirming the confiscation order passed
by the 3rd respondent.
8 On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Proh.
& Excise appearing for respondents supported the order passed
by the 2nd respondent and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. I have noted the above submissions of the respective
counsel.
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was found
transporting 10 liters of ID liquor on the subject vehicle,
whereupon the 4th respondent registered a case in COR.No.333
of 2019, dt.17.11.2019, under Section 7(a) read with 8€ of T.S.
Prohibition Act, 1995, and seized the subject vehicle.
11. This Court, on 03.03.2020 in WP.No.4699 of 2020, had
granted interim custody of the subject vehicle to the petitioner,
subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing Rs.40,000/-
security and also on producing original RC.
12. It is only after the confiscation order was passed, the
subject vehicle was repossessed by the respondents and by
virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 22.07.2021,
the same was not subjected to auction. Thus, the petitioner is
not in possession of the subject vehicle since passing of the
confiscation order, dt.05.01.2021.
13. A Full Bench of this Court in Ganesh Traders (Kirana and
General Merchants), Dhermapuri, Karimnagar District v. District
Collector, Karimnagar and others1, having regard to Article 47 of
the Constitution of India, had taken a view that it is incumbent
on the part of the State to ensure and improve the health of its
2002(1) ALD 210 = 2002(1) ALT 611
citizens, and allowing persons to manufacture ID liquor results
in affecting the health of the people and therefore such activities
cannot be permitted. It had also held that if the authorities
take further action, by following due process of law, no fault can
be found.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since
the petitioner was put on notice upon seizure of the vehicle and
before passing of the confiscation order, and even at the
appellate stage also, and that the petitioner had been granted
opportunity of hearing, there is sufficient compliance of Section
46A of the Excise Act as well as the principles of natural justice
before passing of the confiscation order, as held by a Division
Bench of this Court in The Sub-Inspector, Prohibition and
Excise Police Station, Warangal & two others v. T.Ravinder
Reddy2.
15. Therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the
order passed by the 2nd respondent in affirming the order of the
3rd respondent in confiscating the subject vehicle requiring
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and the writ petition is devoid of merits.
Judgment dt.04.02.2022 in WA.No.204 of 2004.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
01st August, 2022.
gra
