Bharat Dattatary Kerumane vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, including a proprietor of a jaggery business and the owner of a lorry, along with the driver and cleaner, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of a TATA Lorry and approximately 10.2 tonnes of jaggery blocks. The seizure was carried out by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tandur, on May 5, 2020, based on the suspicion that the jaggery was intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor. The petitioners asserted that the jaggery was edible and being transported for sale to a trader in Hyderabad, and that the lorry owner possessed a valid permit, fitness certificate, and pollution check certificate, with the driver holding a valid license. The High Court, by an interim order dated June 1, 2020, directed the release of the vehicle and goods on certain conditions, pending the final decision of the writ petition.

Held

The Court observed that an interim order had already been passed on June 1, 2020, directing the release of the vehicle and goods to the petitioners on specified terms and conditions, pending the final outcome of the writ petition. The Court noted that the seizure was related to COR No. 62/2020, registered for offences under Sections 74 read with 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, against the driver, cleaner, and another individual. The Court stated that this COR needed to be dealt with by the competent court having jurisdiction. Regarding the custody of the vehicle, the Court held that it was open to the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Hyderabad, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 3rd Respondent in seizing the vehicle and jaggery blocks was illegal, unwarranted, and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioners? The petitioners contended that the seizure was arbitrary and illegal, as they possessed valid permits and documents for the transportation of edible jaggery. They argued that the seizure subjected them to immense mental pressure and harassment. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, did not present specific arguments in the provided text regarding the legality of the seizure, but their actions led to the detention. The court noted the pendency of a Crime Occurrence Report (COR) for offences under the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, and the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.