IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.23074 of 2020

18^th March, 2026 Between:

Madhusudhan Goud Badagouni and Others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad and 9 Others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent no.4 to 10 in threatening and not allowing the petitioners into the Rajeev Gandhi International Airport Hyderabad at Shamshabad to do their business of taxi driving and picking and dropping the passengers and also issuing false challans for no wrong committed and threatening of booking false criminal cases detention and taking into illegal custody of the vehicles in connivance with the Respondent no.10 in binding over the petitioners for no cause and reason as illegal arbitrary and against the law and also in violation of the fundamental rights and the constitution guarantees contained in Article 14, 19 Article 300 A of the constitution of India amounting to overreaching of the powers and consequently issue a direction not to arrest detain bind over and stop the petitioners from carrying on their business of running taxis in the premises of RGIA International Airport and pass.......”

2. None appears for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

4.1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the allegation made by the petitioners that the respondent police authorities have unlawfully seized their vehicles and prevented them from entering the premises of the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, thereby interfering with their taxi business is wholly unfounded and devoid of merit. It is contended that the police authorities are discharging their statutory duties strictly within the confines of law and, wherever necessary, are acting in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said provision expressly authorizes designated officers to seize and detain vehicles being used in contravention of the provisions of the Act or without valid documents such as registration, permit, or fitness certificate.

4.2. It is specifically asserted that the vehicles belonging to the petitioners were never seized by the respondent authorities, nor were the petitioners obstructed from accessing or entering the airport premises. It is further submitted that certain vehicles referred to in the writ petition, in certain situations, were considered, for regulatory scrutiny under the Motor Vehicles Act and applicable rules. In the absence of any cogent material or documentary evidence substantiating the allegations, it is urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both parties.

6. The grievance of the petitioners centers on the alleged interference by the respondent police authorities with their right to carry on taxi business, purportedly through unlawful seizure of vehicles and restriction of access to the airport premises. Per contra, the respondents have categorically denied these allegations, maintaining that no such coercive action has been taken. It is their consistent stand that all actions, if any, have been undertaken strictly in accordance with statutory mandates, particularly under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and other relevant regulatory frameworks governing transport vehicles, traffic management, and maintenance of public order.

7. In this context, it is apposite to delineate the scope and limits of police authority. While Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers authorized officers to seize vehicles in cases of statutory violations, such power must be exercised reasonably, in good faith, an