Telangana High Court
WP/23448/2020 of Devakishan Ladda Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisd iction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23448 OF 2020 Between: Devakishan Ladda, S/o lr/egharaj Ladda aged about 67 years, occ.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original J urisd iction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEIVBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 23448 OF 2020
Between:
Devakishan Ladda, S/o lr/egharaj Ladda aged about 67 [years, ]occ. Business [Prop.]Danduram Sathyaram Trading Company 6-3-174, Pedda Bazar, Gopalarao MarketKothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Godown at H.No. 7-7-5211, Sudarshanl\,4astry House Area, Medara Basthi, Kothagudem
...'ET'T'ONER
AND
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue [(Excise)]
Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Station House Officer, Kothagudem Proh. and Excise Station, BhadradriKothagudem DistrictKothagudem District3, The Station House Officer, Kothagudem lll Town Police Station, BhadradriKothagudem District Kothagudem District
...RES'.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in [the]circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court [may be pleased ][to]issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more [particularly ]one [in ]the [nature of]Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 [herein ][in]harassing by interfering with business activities of the [petitioner ][in ][White ][Jaggery ][and]threatening to seize the vehicles along with the stocks during the course [of ][loading,]unloading and transpodation, as the same [is illegal, and arbitrary,]
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances [stated ][in the]affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]the [High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to ][direct ][the]Respondent No.2 and 3 herein not to harass [the ][petitioner ][by ][interfering ][with ][his]business in [purely ]white [jaggery ]at [his ][place ][of ][business under ][valid ][license including]the transportation, [pending ]disposal of [the ][main ][Writ ][Petition]
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BABUJI [TENNETI]
Counsel for the Respondent [Nos.1 ][& 2 ][: ][GP FOR PROHIBITION ][EXGISE]
Counsel for the Respondent [No.3 ][: ][AGP ][FOR ][HOME]
The Court made the following: [ORDER]
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2344a OF 2O2O
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the [petitioner, ][learned]Government Pleader lor Prohibition and [Excise appearing ][for]respondent Nos.l and 2 and learned Assistant Government [Pleader]for Home appearing for respondent No.3.
2. According to petitioner, he is the owner of M/s. DaduramSathyaram Trading Company and is doing business in [white]jaggery. He has necessary statutory permissions and libence tocarry on business in white [jaggery. ]He alleges that white [jaggery ]ispurchased by him from agricultural market committees andtransports with valid bills. According to petitioner, there is noprohibition for sale, purchase and transportation of white [jaggery]and it is meant for human consumption. That being so, petitioneralleges that the excise officials are harassing and threatening withdire consequences and directing him not to carry on business ofwhite [jaggery.]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mainbusiness activity of the petitioner is in white jaggery and since it isnot prohibited, the respondent - excise officials cannot prevent himfrom carrying on business and the same would be amounting tooffending Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise,on instructions, submits that on earlier occasion, petitioner wasfound diverting the jaggery for manufacturing iliegal liquor and five
crlmes \'vere registered against him. As of now, the excise officiarsare not interlering in the business undertaken by the petitioner.He submits that since petitioner was earlier involved in crimes andif any information is received by the excise officials on the aspect ofpetitioner diverting the jaggery for manufacturing ID liquor, theexcise officials would take action against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner isa law abiding citizen and he will not involve in any illegal activitv.
6. Taking note of the statement of learned counsel for thepetitioner, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent _excise officials are directed not to interfere in the business activitSrof the petitioner as long as no adverse report is received by themon diversion of jaggery for manufacturing ID liquor. pendingmiscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
SD/.M.MANJULAASSISTANT REGISTR,TRUE COPY//
To1Revenue i::,.:ii?iJlil;.%%$:ry' (Excise) Department, State or reransana,2*ffr:;1t1"#3use [officer ][Kothagudem ][Proh. ][and ][Excise ]station, Bhadradri3ili^:;xx"#suse [officer, ][Kothasudem ][lll rown ][potice ][station, ]Bhadradri4.5.if":"ili#i1il,.19,.1f; [ilrfi';txl?tr'?,LofBsJ*rorthesrateorre,anganaat]6.3,lr3"t to'GP f6r Home, High court for the state of retangana, HyderabadTwo CD CopiesKj\j**
SECTI ON OFFICER
L
HIGH [COURT]
DATED:3011212020
TEL)IORDERIsi3WP.No.23448 of 2020
DISPOSING OF THE [WRIT ][PETITION]WITHOUT COSTS.oE\s T