Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Bombothula Padma (aadhar No 5451-5505-3330) - Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16634 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2020
Ch Sowmya, Advocate
Headnote:
Excise Act - Section 63(2) - allegation of carrying some prohibited substance - impugned order - Petitioner claims that she is the owner of motor vehicle with brand name as Maruti Ertiga Car vehicle was seized on the allegation of carrying some prohibited substance in the vehicle. Petitioner earlier filed W.P. and the same was disposed of directing Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to consider claim of the petitioner for release of vehicle - Held, present impugned order is passed. Against the order of Deputy Commissioner refusing to release the vehicle, the petitioner has remedy of appeal to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 63(2) of the Excise Act Without availing said remedy, writ petition is filed - Petitioner has an effective remedy in the form of appeal under Section 63(2) of the Excise Act, Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition - Writ petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT
P.Naveen Rao, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 05.03.2020 refusing to release the vehicle pending confiscation proceedings.
3. Petitioner claims that she is the owner of motor vehicle with brand name as Maruti Ertiga Car bearing registration No.AP 25 AP 4104. The vehicle was seized on the allegation of carrying some prohibited substance in the vehicle. Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.337 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 08.01.2020 directing the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle.
4. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court, the present impugned order is passed. Against the order of Deputy Commissioner refusing to release the vehicle, the petitioner has remedy of appeal to the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise under Section 63(2) of the Excise Act. Without availing the said remedy, this writ petition is filed.
5. Since the petitioner has an effective remedy in the form of appeal under Section 63(2) of the Excise Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal raising all pleas as raised in this writ petition. It is needless to observe that if such appeal is preferred, the same may be considered objectively and decision be made and communicated to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
