IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 20-02-2026 Between:

Bhukya Sheker ...petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others.

...respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief/s:-

“..............to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing instructions for public auction of the two-wheeler vehicle bearing No. TS-18-7221, vide impugned proceedings in Proc. Cr. No. B1/310/DCA/2025, dated 14-11-2025, without waiting for the outcome of COR No. 398/2025, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct that the petitioners aforesaid vehicle be released forthwith, and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Smt. G. Sujatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shilpa, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the two-wheeler vehicle bearing Regn. No. TS-18-7221. The said vehicle was seized in COR No.398 of 2025 dated 13-08-2025 which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 7 (a) read with 8 (e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 (for short “the Act, 1995”) on the allegation that the petitioner was carrying ID liquor. Thereafter, he was issued notice dated 17-09-2025 to submit his explanation. The petitioner has submitted his explanation. However, without considering his explanation, the 2nd respondent has issued impugned proceedings dated 14-11-2025 stating that the seized property is confiscated to the State of Telangana and that the said confiscation order is subject to the appeal to be preferred before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, within 60 days from the date of issue of that order as provided under Section 456 (c) of TS Excise Act, 1968.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner himself is the owner of the vehicle, and if the vehicle is not released, it would be put to irreparable loss. He submits that if the vehicle is exposed to air, sun and rain, there is every possibility of the vehicle getting damaged and hence, seeks interim custody of the vehicle. He further relied on the decisions reported in Jagtar Singh, Son of Dhyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2017 Law Suit (Raj.) 2379 Kishore Kumar Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 2017 Law Suit (Ori.) 240 and Waish Ahmed v. State of West Bengal, 2017 Law Suit (Cal.) 22, wherein the High Courts of Rajasthan, Orissa and Calcutta, released the vehicles seized under the Act, on certain terms and conditions. Further, in Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat,, (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that in case of vehicle seized during investigation, it should

not be allowed to deterioration and kept unused and unattended in the premises of the Police Station. Therefore, the vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

5. Since there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the vehicle and having regard to the principles laid down by various High Courts and Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions stated supra, this Court is inclined to grant interim custody of the vehicle bearing Regn. No. TS-18- 7221, which was seized in COR.No.398 of 2025 on the file of the 3^rd respondent-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Nirmal Police Station, Adilabad District, in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, and on such filing of the appeal, the said authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Regn. No. TS-18-7221, with the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall furnish surety for a su