Mr Grandhi Veerabhadra Rao vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010007572023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3521] WEDNE AY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 593/2023 Between:
MR GRANDHI VEERABHADRA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, AGED. 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PROPRIETOR OF SRI VISHNU PRIYA TRADERS, AT SHOP NO. A/51, SVG MARKET. RTC COMPLEX, RAJHAMUNDRY, E. G. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
THE COMMISSIONER OF SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, MANGALAGIRI, A,P, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, VIJAYAWADA REGION, NTR DISTRICT.
THE SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU STATION, KOTHAPETA, AMALAPURAM, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONA SEEMA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Cr. 3829/2022/SEB/C, dt. 19.12.2022 and confirmed the orders of the 3rd Respondent in Rc. No. 3874/2022/C, dt. 04.11.2022, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of Constitution of India, besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the Judgement of Division Bench Orders passed in W.A. No. 596 of 2022, dt. 21.07.2022. Consequently, direct the Respondents to set aside the Orders of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents dt. 19.12.2022 and dt. 04.11.2022…”
Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Sri BabujiTenneti, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the case in Cr.No.3829/2022/SEB/C, dated 19.12.2022, registered by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, was quashed vide orders in Crl.P.No.6731 of 2025 on 04.09.2025 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submits that the jaggery, which was 51 tons seized from the possession of the petitioner and kept in the possession of the petitioner for interim custody during the pendency of the above-mentioned proceedings, was evaporated.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, to buttress his contention that the petitioner is a trader of jaggery by running Sri Vishnu Priya Traders, filed Form GST REG-06 issued as per Rule 10(1) of the GST Act.The jaggery was seized on 09.05.2022.The crime was registered on 10.05.2022. 3
In view of the quashment of the crime by this Court, there is no justification on the part of the respondent No.4 to contend that the jaggery is not required to be given, inasmuch as the petitioner does not have any trade licence to do business with jaggery.
As mentioned supra, since some portion of the jaggery is evaporated, the respondent No.4 is required to hand over the remaining jaggery to the petitioner.
The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has not renewed his licence and he was regularly supplying jaggery to the persons who are manufacturing the illegal liquor has no legs to stand for the simple reason that, if at all the petitioner has not renewed his licence from time to time, the appropriate authority under the GST Act or other relevant Act can proceed against the petitioner for running a trade without appropriate licence.
As mentioned supra, since the crime has been quashed, there is no justification to contend that the jaggery has been regularly supplied to the persons who are preparing illicit arrack.In view of that matter, there is merit in this writ petition. There is no proof or evidence or record that the Petitioner has supplied jaggery to the other accused by entertaining common intention.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, directing respondent No.4 to release the jaggery, whatever is available, to the petitioner forthwith.
4
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 04.02.2026 PRA
5
60 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.593 of 2023
Date: 04.02.2026 PRA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.