Devakishan Ladda v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-30. Devakishan Ladda v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR 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. Business Prop. Danduram Sathyaram Trading Company # 6-3-174, Pedda Bazar, Gopalarao Market Kothagudem Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Godown at H. No. 7-7-5211, Sudarshan l\,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, Bhadradri Kothagudem District 3, The Station House Officer, Kothagudem lll Town Police Station, Bhadradri 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 jaggery at his place of business under valid license including business in purely white 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 PETI TION No. 2344a OF 2O2O 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. Daduram Sathyaram Trading Company and is doing business in white jaggery. He has necessary statutory permissions and libence to carry on business in white jaggery.
He alleges that white jaggery is purchased by him from agricultural market committees and transports with valid bills. According to petitioner, there is no prohibition for sale, purchase and transportation of white jaggery and it is meant for human consumption. That being so, petitioner alleges that the excise officials are harassing and threatening with dire consequences and directing him not to carry on business of white jaggery. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main business activity of the petitioner is in white jaggery and since it is not prohibited, the respondent - excise officials cannot prevent him from carrying on business and the same would be amounting to offending 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 was found diverting the jaggery for manufacturing iliegal liquor and five . J crlmes \'vere registered against him.
As of now, the excise officiars are not interlering in the business undertaken by the petitioner. He submits that since petitioner was earlier involved in crimes and if any information is received by the excise officials on the aspect of petitioner diverting the jaggery for manufacturing ID liquor, the excise officials would take action against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he will not involve in any illegal activitv. 6. Taking note of the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondent _ excise officials are directed not to interfere in the business activitSr of the petitioner as long as no adverse report is received by them on diversion of jaggery for manufacturing ID liquor. pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. SD/. M. MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTR ,TRUE COPY// To SECTI ON OFFICER 1 Revenue (Excise) Department, State or reransana, i::,. :ii? iJlil;.
%%$:ry' 2 officer Kothagudem Proh. and Excise *ffr:;1t1"#3use station, Bhadradri 3 officer, Kothasudem lll rown potice ili^:;xx"#suse station, Bhadradri 4. 5. ilrfi';txl? tr'? ,LofBsJ*rorthesrateorre,anganaat if":"ili#i1il,. 19,. 1f; 6. to'GP f6r Home, High court for the state of retangana, 3,lr3"t Hyderabad Two CD Copies Kj \j** J HIGH COURT L DATED:3011212020 TEL ) I ORDER I s i3 WP. No. 23448 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. oE\s T
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.