Omprakash Loya vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Onprakash Loya, a businessman dealing in jaggery and alum, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the respondents. The petitioner alleged harassment, interference with his business conducted under a valid license, and seizure of jaggery and alum. He claimed to have produced bills and waybills evidencing lawful purchase and transportation. The respondents, including the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, and Station House Officers, were accused of seizing stock and a vehicle (Reg.No. AP-15-TC-0660) and preventing the petitioner from carrying on his business. The petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents' actions were illegal and arbitrary, and a direction to cease interference and release seized items.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the respondents' actions in interfering with the petitioner's business of dealing in black jaggery and alum were illegal and arbitrary. The Court reasoned that dealing in black jaggery or alum is neither prohibited nor regulated in a manner that would grant the respondents the authority to interfere with a lawful business. The Court distinguished the cited case of Ganesh Traders, noting that no material was placed before it to show that the petitioner was involved in the manufacture of illicit liquor or that the seized jaggery was intended for such use. The Court emphasized that the State permitting the sale of jaggery through trade licenses and VAT/GST registrations indicated that it could be carried on legally. The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's lawful trade, except in accordance with law or until such activity is prohibited by the State. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's business of dealing in jaggery and alum, and seizing the stock and vehicle, is illegal and arbitrary, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was conducting a lawful business under a valid license and registration. Dealing in jaggery and alum is neither prohibited nor regulated in a manner that would permit the respondents' interference. He argued that the seizure and harassment were based on a confessional statement of another accused and that his possession of jaggery, even if substantial, did not justify the respondents' actions. He relied on a previous High Court order in W.P. No. 31519 of 2016 and a Government Memo classifying black jaggery as an agricultural product. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner did not produce valid documents, such as invoices/bills and waybills, pertaining to the purchase and sale of jaggery at the time of the raid. They contended that the raid was conducted based on the confession of accused No. 1, and that they were not interfering without receiving complaints. They also relied on a case (Ganesh Traders) where black jaggery was found to be used for manufacturing illicit liquor.