IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.6993 of 2026 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between:

Mr. Ram Kumar Sarada ...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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the impugned proceedings CR No.2105/2025 /CPE/EX/D1, dated 13.01.2026 passed by the 2nd respondent in imposing Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty for release of vehicle i.e.

Mahendra Bolero Max Pick Up registered bearing No.TS-28TB-1035 and 38 tins of Vijaya Palm Oil and each tin weight 15 kgs on the petitioner pending COR No.50 of 2025 dated 22.06.2025 on the file of the Palvoncha Excise Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of TS Excise Act, 1968 and without jurisdiction and consequently to modify/set aside the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 in CR No.2105 of 2025/CPE/EX/D1 for release the vehicle and commodity in favour of petitioner i.e., Mahendra Bolero Max Pick Up registered bearing No.TS-28TB-1035 and 38 tins of Vijaya Palm Oil and each tin weight 15 kgs in the interest of Justice…”

2. Heard Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 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 is the appellant before respondent No.2 against the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide order dated 07.08.2025 in Procgs. Cr.No.287/2025/P&E/A2. Respondent No.2, by exercising powers under Section 46(C) of the T.S. Excise Act, 1968, modified the order passed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 13.01.2026 in proceedings CR.No.2105/2025/CPE/EX/D1, wherein a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and permanent release of the vehicle, Vijaya Palm Oil Tins, was ordered with a warning that no leniency would be shown in case of any subsequent offence. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

4.1. He further submits that the petitioner is not an accused in the crime registered and is a law-abiding citizen who has been eking out his livelihood by renting out the said vehicle. The vehicle was allegedly used without his knowledge and without any premeditated involvement on his part. Therefore, confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle and the imposition of a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for its release is improper, resulting in unjust loss to the petitioner, particularly when he has not been arrayed as an accused in the said crime. Stating so, he would seek to pass appropriate orders.

5. Opposing the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise submits that the fine has been rightly and appropriately imposed by respondent No. 2 in the impugned proceedings. He contends that the off-sale value of the vehicle is much higher than the fine imposed and that a very meagre fine has been levied on the vehicle, which constitutes crime property. He further submits that whether the petitioner is involved in the said crime or not can only be determined after completion of the investigation. When the crime is at a premature stage seeking further relief in this writ petition would amount to misconception.

Stating so, he would seek to dismiss this writ petition.

6. This Court having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader representing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perusal of the material before this Court, found that respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings by imposing a fine of Rs.1 lakh to release the vehicle