IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.5964 of 2026 DATE: 25.02.2026 Between:

Mr. Vaidhya Kishan.

...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the petitioners bearing Registration No.TSOlUA6250, Auto Rickshaw, Chassis No.MD2A26AZ8GWC20392,Engine No.BAZWGC19093 seized in Crime No.421/2025 dated 13/12/2025 Adilabad Rural as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)g and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to release the petitioners vehicle forthwith…”

2. Heard Sri S.Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3. Perused the record.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 421 of 2025 dated 13.12.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 173 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNS”) and Section 34(a) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for brevity, “the Act, 1968”) on the file of Adilabad Rural Police Station, Adilabad District.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the second phase of the Gram Panchayat Elections on 14.12.2025, the petitioner’s vehicle, i.e., Auto bearing No. TS01UA6250, was intercepted and seized. Upon interception, it was allegedly found that the vehicle was carrying liquor bottles said to have been purchased from a wine shop at Adilabad for the purpose of distribution to the general public. He would submit that the vehicle was being driven by the accused persons and among them Accused No.2, is the driver of the petitioner.

4.2 It is further contended that the petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offence and that the vehicle has been seized without any fault attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel would also submit that, insofar as election-related offences are concerned, a complaint can be initiated only by the Election Officer or the Returning Officer, and that any complaint lodged by any other person would not fall within the zone of consideration in accordance with law. Stating so, he would seek to pass appropriate orders.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that it is an admitted fact that the subject vehicle was found plying in a suspicious manner and, upon interception, it was discovered to be carrying liquor in violation of the election code. It is contended that there was illegal transportation of liquor to the extent of 8.460 litres, valued at Rs. 8,930/-. After conducting a panchanama, the competent authority, i.e., respondent No. 3, seized the vehicle, and thereafter, custody of the same was entrusted to respondent No. 2.

6 Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that since the vehicle constitutes case property, it is required to be retained until completion of trial. The matter is presently pending consideration before the Drug Disposal Committee. It is also contended that the power to order release of the seized vehicle is vested exclusively with the competent Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, and that respondent No. 2 is not empowered under law to release the vehicle. Stating so, he would seek to dismiss this writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibiti