Back
The availability of an alternative remedy under Section 63(2) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, bars the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
EXCISE - SEIZURE OF VEHICLE - APPEAL - AVAILABILITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - [Section 63(2) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' vehicles were seized by the respondents for allegedly transporting cane jaggery powder without a permit. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the release of their vehicles, contending that the seizure was illegal and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners had an effective and efficacious remedy under Section 63(2) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 63(2) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968.
Ratio Decidendi: When an effective and efficacious remedy under Section 63(2) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, is available to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise concerned, it is not appropriate for the court to decide the subject issues under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
1
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)
State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GWALIOR BENCH
DIVISION BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA
&
RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA J.J.
Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors.
Vs.
State of M.P.
&
Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010
State of M.P.
Vs.
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors.
Shri R.K.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for Appellants No. 1 and 2
Shri Padam Singh with Shri Udaiveer Singh Counsel for Appellants
No. 3 and 4
Shri C.P. Singh Counsel for the State
Date of Hearing
: 21-12-2021
Date of Judgment
: 4/Jan/2022
Approved for Reporting
: Yes
2
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)
State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)
Judgment
4th- January-2022
Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.
1.
By this common judgment, the Cr.A. No. 410/2010 and Cr.A.
No. 456 of 2010 shall be decided.
2.
Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010 has been filed by Appellants Ahmed
Sayeed, Samim, Anees and Shakeel against the judgment and
sentence dated 13-4-2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Sironj, Distt. Vidisha in S.T. No. 15/2004, by which the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
a. Under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for murder of
Fida Mohd., Abdul Azeez and Rabia bi) and sentenced to undergo
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on
three counts ;
b. Under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. (On three counts for attempting to
kill Anwar, Johra bi, and Mohd. Khalil) and sentenced to undergo 7
years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months R.I., on three
counts ;
c. Appellant Ahmed Sayeed under Section 148 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3
months R.I.
d. Appellants Samim, Anees and Shakeel under Section 147 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3
3
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)
State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)
months R.I.
All the sentences to run concurrently.
Whereas Cr.A. No.456/2010 has been filed by the State for
enhancement of sentence and for award of death penalty.
3.
The necessary facts for disposal of present appeal in short are
that the complainant Gaffar Khan lodged a Dehati Nalishi, Ex. P.1 on
5-5-2003 at 10:25 A.M., on the allegations that he is the resident of
village Jhujhalakheda and is an agriculturist by profession. There
was a dispute between Abdul Azeez and Ahmed Sayeed on the
question of boundary of field. At about 8:00 A.M., Haneef Khan,
Munne bhai, Fida Bhai and the complainant had gone to amicably
settle the matter. Anees, Shakeel, Yusuf and Shamim, all sons of
Ahmed Sayeed were also there. The complainant, Munna bhai, Fida
Bhai and Haneef Bhai were affixing stones on the earthen boundary.
Ahmed Sayeed and his sons Anees, Samim, Yusuf and Shakeel started
abusing and scuffling. They were separated by the complainant and
others. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed and his sons ran towards their
house. Ahmed Sayeed came out along with his .12 bore gun.
Shakeel was following him along with a belt of cartridges. Shakeel,
Yusuf and Samim also came there and started shouting that all should
be killed. Ahmed Sayeed fired a gun shot causing injury to Khalil
who was standing in the courtyard of Ahmed Sayeed. He fell down
after sustaining gun shot injury. Thereafter, Ahmed Sayeed fired a
4
Ahmed Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 410 of 2010)
State of M.P. Vs. Ahmed Sayeed & Ors (Cr.A. No. 456 of 2010)
gun shot causing injury to Azeez, who also fell down after sustaining
gun shot injury. Azeez was standing in front of the house of
Munnawar. Rabia bi was also standing there, who also sustained gun
