WP/20927/2026 of Vankudothu Upender Naik Vs The State of Telangana on 13 July 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.2, in issuing the impugned re-seizure proceedings vide Cr.No.21/2026/8 dated 15.06.2026 and consequently re-seizing the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.TG-15-UC-5434, without serving or communicating any confiscation order, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, despite implementing the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by this Hon'ble Couft in W.P.NI'17125 of 2026 by releasing the petitioner's vehicle, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 74, 27 and 300-A of the Constitution of India' and consequently direct respondent Nos'2 and 3 to forthwith release the petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No'TG-

15-UC-5434 to the petitioner, and pass"' Heard Mr' Laxmaiah Kanchani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Vishal Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Ashok Leyland Goods Carriage bearing Registration No.TG-15-UC -5434 and is earning his livelihood through the said vehicle' The vehicle was seized by the 3'd respondent in connection with COR No.B1 of 2026 dated 05'05'2026 under Sections 7(a) read with 8(e) of the Telangana prohibition Act, 1gg5 and section 34(e) of the Terangana Excise Act, 1968 for the alleged transpoftation of black iaggery' alum and ID liquor. He submits that the allegations are false and the black jaggery was being transported under valid bills for lawful commercial purposes'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further sub'mits that' since the vehicre was not rereased, the petitioner approached this court by firing W.P.No.1712 5 of 2026' By order dated 04'06'2026' this Court directed rerease of the vehicre subject to certain conditions, incruding furnishing a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for Rs'25'000/-' The petitioner complied with all the conditions imposed by this court, whereupon respondent No.2 issued release proceedings and the vehicle was released'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that immediately after releasing the vehicle pursuant to the order of this court, the respondents once again re-seized the same vehicle by issuing proceedings in cr.No.21l202618 dated 15.06.2026 on the ground that the vehicle had already been confiscated in connection with coR No.18 ot 2026. Learned counsel submits that no confiscation order was ever served on the petitioner and no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before passing the alleged confiscation order. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to law.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that three cases have been registered in respect of the same vehicle, namely, COR No.18 of 2026 dated 20'01'2026, COR No.B1 of 2026 dated 05.05.2026 and Crime No'150 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and, therefore, the authorities were justified in re-seizing the vehicle. He further submits that the confiscation proceedings have already been initiated and the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority.

7. This couft has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the subject vehicre. It is arso not n dispute that the vehicle was released pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17125 ot 2026 and was thereafter re_seized bv the respondents. At the same time, it is the specific stand of the respondents that confiscation proceedings have arready been initiated and the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appear against the conriscation order. 8' Accordingry, the respondents are directed to rerease the petitioner,s vehicre bearing Registration No.TG-15-UC-5434 subject to the forowing conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall produce a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a sum of Rs.50,000/_ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) before respondent No.2 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The petitioner shall produce the original Registration certificate of the vehicle before respondent No.2 at the time of release.

(iii) The petitioner sha, fire an undertaking to produce the vehicre whenever required by the Investigating Agency or by the competent court and arso given an undertaking that he wi, not arienate, encumber or alter the identity or major features of the vehicle.

9. It is made clear that if a confiscation order has already been passed, the petitioner shall avail the statutory remedy of .l appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' Till disposal of such appeal' the respondents shall not auction the vehicle'

10. It is further macle clear that if the subject vehicle is found to be invorved in any simirar offence during the pendency of the appeal, no further consideration shall be given in respect of the vehicle' and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with auction of the subject vehicle in accordance with law'

11. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition IS disposecl of' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitionS pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASS STAIIT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The PiinciPal Secretary' State of Telangana, Prohibition and Excise Departrnent, Secetariate, Hyderabad i .. .

2. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise At Nalgonda' Nalgonda District

3. TheStationHouseOfficer'ThungathurthyProhibitionandExciseStation' SuryaPet District

4. One CC to SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, Advocate lOPUCl

5. TwoCCstoGPFoRPRoHlBlTloN&EXCISE,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

6. Tvro CD CoPies. TKS BSK @:

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310712026

ORDER

WP.No.20927 ot 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q CC TODAY c- STATE oF 1l Jut 2$l$ n f,co ot I -t D i_'s . '/,,(c\ ( .$" T