The court held that municipal authorities cannot seize premises for non-compliance without following due legal process, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Krishna J, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent and Ms. Swetcha Tekuru, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. Petitioner has obtained licence for sale of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor by Bar to be consumed on the premises in Form - 2B as per Rule 4 of Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of selling by Bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005, and is running a bar and restaurant in the name and style of M/s.Chithra Restaurant & Bar at Sircilla, within the limits of 2^nd respondent Municipality, from 2019. Vide order dated 04.11.2024, he has obtained renewal license for the excise year 2024-25. It is valid from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2025. He has specifically stated that his father is the Town President of BRS Party and his mother is an Ex-Chairman of Sircilla Municipality. While the matter stood thus, due to political rivalry, on 29.01.2025, during pre-lunch, 2^nd respondent has seized the subject bar without following due procedure laid down under law on the ground that petitioner does not possess valid trade license. Therefore, questioning the said inaction of 2^nd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Vide order dated 31.01.2025, this Court directed 2^nd respondent to unseal the subject bar immediately.

4. 2^nd respondent had filed counter-affidavit contending that petitioner had obtained 2-B license in collusion with District Prohibition and Excise officials and committed many violations. Merely possessing an excise license does not exempt the establishment from obtaining a trade license from the municipality. He has obtained trade license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, by way of misrepresentation. However, possession of the said license does not override the requirement of obtaining trade license under the Act, 2019.

5. It is further contended that non-payment of trade license fee of Rs.27,300/- for the financial year 2024-25 was admitted by petitioner and therefore, seizure of the subject bar on 29.01.2025 is lawful. Police authorities were called only for maintaining law and order as required by municipal enforcement guidelines. The presence of media was not orchestrated by Municipality. The payment of Rs.27,300/- made by petitioner towards trade license fee on 29.01.2025 does not retroactively validate the unauthorized operation of the subject bar. The subject bar was seized before the payment was made by the petitioner and therefore, subsequent payment does not entitle the petitioner to resume operations without proper municipal clearance. It is further contended that the allegation made by petitioner that the municipal authorities acted on the instructions of 3^rd respondent i.e., District Collector out of political vendetta is false and baseless.

6. In paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the said counter-affidavit, 2^nd respondent has categorically admitted about the receipt of representation dated 29.01.2025 submitted by petitioner but the unsealing process requires administrative clearance, verification and legal compliance. The same is in consideration. Action taken by 2^nd respondent was solely based on statutory non-compliance. 2^nd respondent is nothing to do with the petitioner’s political affiliations.

7. By placing reliance on the Te