Guguloth Bujji vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Guguloth Bujji, a proprietor of a general merchant shop, filed a writ petition seeking the return of 82 bags of Alum (each 50 kgs) seized by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kothagudem. The petitioner claims the seizure was illegal and contrary to the Telangana Excise Act, 1968. She possesses a GST Registration Certificate and asserts she conducts a legal business. The seizure occurred on August 6, 2024, after the lock of her business premises was broken. The petitioner also alleges that 78 bags were planted in another individual's house, and a crime was registered against a third party. The revenue contended that the petitioner should approach the Deputy Commissioner for interim release, as confiscation proceedings are pending, and the seized stock is presumed to be for illicit liquor manufacture. Samples have been sent for chemical analysis.
Held
The Court did not entertain the writ petition on merits. It noted the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise that confiscation proceedings are pending and that samples of the seized contraband have been sent for chemical analysis, with the test report awaited. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department) by filing an appropriate application seeking interim release or release of the seized contraband. The respondent No.3 was directed to pass orders on such application in accordance with law within a period of one week. The Court explicitly left undecided the legality of the seizure and the petitioner's entitlement to the return of the goods, deferring these to the appropriate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seizure of 82 bags of Alum by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector was illegal and arbitrary, violating the petitioner's rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the immediate return of the seized Alum bags? The petitioner argued that the seizure was illegal and contrary to the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, as she is engaged in a legal business of selling Alum and other general items, supported by her GST registration and bill books. The revenue contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under law by approaching the Deputy Commissioner for interim release. They argued that confiscation proceedings are pending, and it is premature to claim the return of seized contraband before chemical analysis, as there is a presumption that large stocks of Alum and black jaggery are used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor. The revenue relied on Sections 7(A) and 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.
Sections Cited
Section 7(A), Section 8(e), Section 34(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2024
HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETTTTONN0.291240F 2024 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is fited by the petitioner seeking to direct respondent No.4 - the Prohibition and Excise lnspector, Kothagudem' to immediately return eight two (82) bags of Atum (each bag consisting of 50 kgs) illegally seizecl by respondent No'4 and staff from the shop of the petitioner bearing tl No'7-5-107/1" Medar Basthi' Kothagudem.
Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Mard iraf u, learned counsel for the petitioner, altd Mr- S. Laxmi Narayarr'r, It'arned Assistant Government Pleader for ProhiLrition and I:xcist:, ancl perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the Pctitioner submitted that the above stock of Alum was seized by respondent No'4 and staff illegally and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Excise Act' 1968. t-earned counsel submittcd that the petitioner is the owner of 'M/s Bagal Mata Alum Kirana and Gcne ral Merchant' and he is doing legal business in the sale of Alurn arrd other general items in the 2 Premises bearing H.No.7-S_107/1, Medar Basthi, Kothagudem. The petitioner has GST Registration Certificate issued by the Deputy Tax officer, Kothagudem-Il dated w.06,2022. It is submitted that on 06.08.2024 at about 8.30 p.m., respondent No.4 along with staff broke open the lock of the business premises and seized g2 bags of Alum (each bag consisting of 50 kgs). It is submitted that rr,sporrdent No.4 has planted seventy eight (7g) bags in the house ot one Mr. Dcvi Kishan Ladda and crime was registered against Mr. Lakavath Ravi atdc C.O.R. No.311 of 2024 alteging that 7g bags of Alum l.ras been recovered from them. That during the course of invr.stil;ation in thc, said crime, the Police have illegally seized alum fror, tlrt: busi,ess prerrrises of the petitioner. Learned counsel suhmittcrj th.t Alunr/black jaggery is purchased legally and evidenceci tr' the biil books. Thus, the seizure of g2 bags of Alum (each bag consisting of 5O kgs) is illegal.
Learned Assistant Governrnent pleadcr for l,rohibition and Excise submitted that the petitioner cannot bypass tl_re renredy ava ilable to him under law. The petitioncr has to aprproacl_r respondent No'3 - the Deputy Comrnissioner of protrilrition and Excise Puram, Khammam Dislrict, for intcrim Ilepartmult, Battepalli, Khana
.,) release/release of the seized contraband. As per procedure, registered under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the IS I I Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the 'Ielangana Iixcise Act, 1968 and pending confiscation proceedings, it is premature for the petitioner to contend that he is doing legal business and he is entitled for the release of the seized contraband. Unless the samples are tested, it would not be appropria te to release the seized contraband. There is a presumption that possc'ssiorr o[ huge stocks of alum and black laggery is meant to be used for manufacture of lllicit Distilled Liquor (lD Liquor)
In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise that confiscation proceedings are pending, the samples o[ seized contraband are sent for chemical analysis and the test report is awaited, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 6. [n view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach responclcnt No.3 by filing appropriate application seekirrg interim releasc/ releasc of the seized I t \ the sample of seized stock wL[ be sent to chemical analysis. The crime
4 contraband and on such application being filed, respondent No.3 shall pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) week thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, stand closed. . K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR seJloru oFFtcER The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise) Department, Telangand Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Prohibition and Eiie Corpr.i. Aburi Bhavan, Nampally Stition Road, Nampally Road, Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner, of Prohibition and Excise Department, Ballepalli' Khanapuram, Khammam District The Prohibition and Excise lnspector, Kothagudem, Telangana One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU. Advocate. [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCtSf , High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI Two CD Copies. //' To, 1 2 a aJ_ 5
BSK LS I
HIGH COURT DATED:22110t2024 HE Sr4 I6: ( oo 0I JAil 2025 o53;c,a rC.," .+ -o * ORDER WP.No.29124 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS elo"* f--- I
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.