IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 16-02-2026 Between:

Lavudya Ravi Naik ...petitioner AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan, 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 inaction of the respondents in considering the claim of petitioner for release the petitioner’s vehicle Mahindra Scorpio Car bearing No.TS 15 EL 2678 which is seized in COR.No.169/2025 dated 09.12.2025 by the S.H.O., Prohibition and Excise Station, Medak Division, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequential direction to 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of his vehicle Mahindra Scorpio Car bearing No.TS 15 EL 2678 which is seized in COR.No.169/2025 dated 09.12.2025 of S.H.O., Prohibition and Excise Station, Medak Division, Sangareddy, Sangareddy District, in the interest of Justice, and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Sri Kasireddy Mohan Chandrahas, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle in question. On 09-02-2026, on receiving reliable information, the 3^rd respondent has intercepted the vehicle and seized the vehicle in question along with certain material viz., 850 gms of dry ganja. He would further submit that the petitioner was not arrayed as accused in the said crime and that the petitioner is running out the said vehicle and on the returns of the rental income, the petitioner is surviving his livelihood. The petitioner is no way concerned with the crime registered against the accused, but the vehicle of the petitioner is seized with no fault. He would further submit that the petitioner is always willing to co-operate with the further investigation and since the vehicle is kept under the custody of the 3^rd respondent, and open to sky the condition of the vehicle would be damaged. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surenderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarath, (2002) 10 SCC 283 Stating so, he would seek to pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for the respondents, would submit that with regard to the vehicle seized along with incriminating material, the authorities are duly empowered under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is further contended that in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 52-A read with Rule 19 of the NDPS Rules, a seized conveyance used for

transportation of contraband is liable to be ordered for auction after strictly following the procedure contemplated therein. Further, in order to avoid any further deterioration of the vehicle, the procedure will be followed under the NDPS Act. Stating so, she would submit that a notice under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act, 1985 was issued to the petitioner vide Cr. No.21/2022/DCM/C-1 dated 12-02-2026 by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner ought to have filed an explanation to the said notice and after filing such explanation, appropriate action would be taken by the respondents. Hence, she would seek to pass appropriate orders.

5. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for all the parties, and upon consideration of the material available on record, admittedly the vehicle in question has been seized in COR.No.169 of 2025 dated 09-02-2026 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (C) read with 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 on the file of 3rd respondent and in that connection, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation from him vide Notice