SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39575

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
V. Bheemanna – Appellant
Versus
The Collector – Respondent
WP 7404/2025



THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.7404 of 2025

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders in Case Ref.No.CS2/81/2022 dated 27.01.2023, passed by respondent No.1 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (for short, “the Act”), confiscating the vehicle bearing No. AP 23 Y 7538 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP 23 Y 7538 and that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, respondent No.1 concluded the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that when the vehicle was intercepted and seized, the driver of the vehicle had claimed to be the owner of the said vehicle and had also furnished an agreement of sale stating that he is the owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the same, a notice was issued to the said person and proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were conclude.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies has drawn the attention of this Court to Page Nos.47 to 49 of the counter affidavit, to assist this Court. It is submitted that only after the writ petition was filed, the department has come to know that the petitioner is the actual owner of the vehicle. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies further submitted that as per the interim order of this Court, the vehicle has been released to the petitioner after obtaining the security deposit of Rs.60,000/-.

5. In view of the above submissions, it appears that the petitioner is the owner of the subject vehicle which was seized and the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act were concluded by making the driver as party instead of the owner. Therefore, the impugned order in Case Ref.No.CS2/81/2022 dated 27.01.2023, insofar as confiscation of the vehicle, is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner and afford sufficient opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass an appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The security deposit of Rs.60,000/- may be returned to the petitioner after the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, provided the vehicle is not confiscated.

7. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 29.10.2025 PRN HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.7404 of 2025 Date: 29.10.2025 PRN

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top