Mr. Ghanshyam Das Karwa vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the confiscation order passed by Respondent No. 3 and confirmed by Respondent No. 2 was not erroneous. The respondents followed the due procedure in disposing of the seized vehicle. Section 46(4) of the Excise Act, 1968, authorizes the confiscating authority to dispose of a vehicle by public auction or departmentally. While the petitioner argued that the auction notice lacked publicity and sufficient time, the Court found that the authorities conducted the auction departmentally by pasting notices at their station, which included details of the vehicle and upset price. This procedure, as per the Court's interpretation of Section 46(4), was not improper. The Court noted that the vehicle was eventually sold to a successful bidder for Rs. 6,33,660/- including GST, and handed over after payment. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondent authorities had disposed of the subject vehicle in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 46(4) of the Act, 1968, and found no error in their actions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Ghanshyam Das Karuva, operates a jaggery business. On June 9, 2020, a lorry carrying jaggery dispatched from Maharashtra was stopped by Excise Department officials. The petitioner and the lorry driver were compelled to take the lorry to Achampet, where the petitioner's car and the lorry were seized, and a case was registered against several individuals, including the petitioner. Previously, this Court had directed the release of the car upon furnishing a fixed deposit and an undertaking. However, the authorities refused to release the vehicle, citing an order of confiscation. The petitioner filed a contempt case for non-compliance. An appeal against the confiscation order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on February 8, 2021. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging this dismissal order and seeking the release of his car.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of confiscation passed by Respondent No. 3 and confirmed by Respondent No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary, violating the petitioner's rights, particularly considering he was conducting business with a valid license and possessed necessary documents like waybills and purchase bills, and that mere possession of black jaggery for manufacturing purposes is not an offense under Section 34(e) read with Section 34(2) of the Act, 1968? Petitioner's Arguments: The confiscation order is illegal and arbitrary as the Excise Police falsely implicated the petitioner. The petitioner was conducting business with a valid license and the statute does not prohibit his business. The respondents erred in passing the order without considering these facts. Section 34(e) read with 34(2) of the Act makes possession of black jaggery for manufacturing Indian Made Liquor an offense, not mere possession. The petitioner had valid documents. The refusal to release the vehicle despite furnishing surety and the subsequent auction notice are illegal and contrary to natural justice. Respondents' Arguments: The petitioner furnished the FDR as per the court's order, and the vehicle was released. A show-cause notice was issued after a chemical examiner's report indicated the seized material was unfit for human consumption. The petitioner's explanation was considered before passing the confiscation order. The appeal against the confiscation order was dismissed after considering the petitioner's submissions. The procedure for auctioning the vehicle was followed as per Section 46(4) of the Excise Act, 1968, and the vehicle was sold to the highest bidder.