IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.32569 AND 32712 of 2014 BETWEEN S.Ratna Shekhar and another AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners in these writ petitions complain of seizure of entire stock of black jaggery allegedly seized from their premises viz., D.No.2/2/16/5, RTC Bus Stand Road, Main Road, Mahabubabad, Warangal, and D.No.6/2/89, Kankara Board, Sarvepalli Radhakrishna Centre, Mahabubabad, Warangal District. Petitioners state that though they have not committed any offence, Crime Nos.251, 250 and 263 of 2014 were booked against them by respondent No.3 under Section 34(e) of A.P.Excise Act and Section 3 of GUR (Regulation of Use) Act, 1968. Petitioners allege that when they approached the criminal court for interim release of the said stock viz., Crl.M.P.Nos.252, 251 and 267 of 2014 in Crime Nos.251, 250 and 263 of 2014 respectively on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, the same were returned to approach respondent No.2. However, when the petitioners approached respondent No.2, they were directed to approach respondent No.3 and since the crime was already reported to the learned Magistrate, respondent No.3 is unable to exercise any power. Hence, the petitioners invoke the jurisdiction of this court.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that Crime Nos.251, 250 and 263 of 2014 were already registered against the respective petitioners by respondent No.3 and the seizure reports, panchanamas, copies of F.I.Rs were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad and the investigation is under progress. It is, however, stated that since the petitioners’ request for release was rejected by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad, they are not entitled for release of the stocks.
4. It is evident from the averments of the petitioners that their applications for interim release was returned by the criminal court, as the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction under the Act to consider the request for release. Thereafter, however, though the petitioners have approached the Deputy Commissioner, he in turn allegedly directed the petitioners to approach respondent No.3. Petitioners, however, has not produced any copy of the applications made by them before the Deputy Commissioner.
5. Hence, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions by permitting the respective petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner by making appropriate applications seeking release of the stocks pending investigation of the crime. If such applications are made, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.2, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within a week from the date of filing of the applications.
With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 10, 2014 LMV