[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Sri. Rajith Kumar Mamidishetti vs The State Of Telangana on 14 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.15102 of 2025
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking the following
relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of writ of
mandamus questioning the impugned proceedings
Cr.No.B/21/2022/DCM, Dt.29.04.2025 served on
the Petitioner on 07.05.2025 by the 2nd
Respondent for confiscating the Mahindra Thar
vehicle bearing No.TS 08-JZ-0005 in favour of
Government which was seized in COR No.06 of
2025 dt.20.01.2025 on the file of Proh. and Excise
Police Station Sangarereddy by rejecting to grant
interim custody in favour of the Petitioner without
concluding the trial is ex facie erroneous, illegal,
arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside
the impugned Proceedings Cr.No.B/21/2022/
DCM, dt.29.04.2025 (served on the Petitioner on
07.05.2025) issued by the 2nd Respondent and
forthwith release the vehicle in favour the
Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant
2
Government Pleader for Home Department, appearing for
respondent No.1; and Sri P.Vishal, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise
Department, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of
admission.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The petitioner averred that he is the owner of the
Mahindra Thar vehicle bearing No.TS-08-JZ-0005
(hereinafter referred to as, “the subject vehicle”) which was
purchased by availing financial assistance from a private
financier. It is further averred that five months back, he
placed the subject vehicle in “Zoom Car”, which is car
sharing market place. The “Zoom Car” connects hosts with
guests, who choose from the selection of cars for use at
affordable prices, promoting smart transportation solutions
in India. For each booking on “Zoom Car”, the aggregate
amount was charged from the guest who booked the car.
Accordingly, the “Zoom Car” platform provides hosts. On
3
17.01.2025, one person, namely Harjoth Singh, has
booked the petitioner’s subject vehicle through “Zoom Car”
for four days through booking number ID-JPSNOQ80D and
he had to return the same by 20.01.2025. However, he did
not return the subject vehicle to the petitioner.
4.2. It is further averred that on 20.01.2025, the Assistant
Commissioner, Enforcement Team, Medak Division,
checked the subject vehicle at Malkapur Flyover in the
presence of panchas and during the said checking, they
detected contraband i.e., 0.12 grams of
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) Crystals from
the possession of Harjoth Singh under cover of a
panchanama and accordingly a crime in COR No.6 of 2025
was registered for the offences under Sections 8(c) read
with Section 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as, “the
NDPS Act“), against Harjoth Singh and seized the subject
vehicle. It is further averred that a Drug Disposal
Committee was constituted for the purpose of disposal of
the seized items. Accordingly, the Drug Disposal
4Committee has issued notice dated 11.03.2025 directing
the petitioner to submit explanation, if any, within a period
of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Pursuant
to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on
03.04.2025 stating that he has no knowledge about the
alleged transportation of MDMA and he has not committed
any offence and requested respondent No.2 to release the
subject vehicle. Respondent No.2, without considering the
said explanation, passed the impugned order dated
29.04.2025 rejecting the request of the petitioner for
release of subject vehicle on interim custody, without
assigning any reasons. Hence, the present writ petition is
filed.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has not committed any offence under the
provisions of the NDPS Act. The alleged contraband was
seized from the possession of Harjoth Singh only. The
petitioner purchased the subject vehicle through private
financier and eking out his livelihood through the said
5vehicle. He further submitted that the petitioner submitted
an application before respondent No.2 for release of the
subject vehicle on interim custody explaining the reasons.
Considering the aforesaid explanation, the impugned order
was passed without assigning any reasons, which is in
gross violation of principles of natural justice. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions
which may be imposed by this Court and unless the
subject vehicle is released, the petitioner will be put to
great hardship.
Submissions of the learned Assistant Government
Pleaders appearing for the respondents:
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Prohibition and Excise Department appearing for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the petitioner’s
subject vehicle was involved in a grave offence and the
contraband i.e., 0.12 grams of MDMA Crystals, was seized
from the subject vehicle and the petitioner is not entitled
for release of the said vehicle.
6
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
Department appearing for respondent No.1 also reiterated
the very same submissions.
Analysis of the case:
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and on a perusal of the material
available on record, it reveals that the Assistant
Commissioner Enforcement Team, Medak Division,
conducted vehicle inspection and seized the contraband
i.e., 0.12 grams of MDMA Crystals, from the possession of
Harjoth Singh and registered the crime in COR No.6 of
2025 and the same is pending on the file of the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases
under Telangana Prohibition & Excise Act, Sangareddy.
Now the subject vehicle is in the custody of respondent
No.2. The record further discloses that respondent No.2
issued notice on 11.03.2025 exercising the powers
conferred under Rule 52A read with Rule 19 of the
Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985,
directing the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the
7
subject vehicle should not be confiscated. Pursuant to the
said notice, the petitioner submitted the explanation on
03.04.2025, wherein he stated that he has not committed
the aforesaid crime and the alleged contraband was seized
from the possession of Harjoth Singh. The petitioner also
requested respondent No.2 to release the subject vehicle on
interim custody and the said request was refused by
respondent No.2 through the impugned order dated
29.04.2025 without assigning any reasons. Even
according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Prohibition and Excise Department, the subject vehicle was
not involved in any other offences.
9. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate
to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to release the subject
vehicle i.e., Mahindra Thar vehicle bearing No.TS-08-JZ-
0005, to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish the bank guarantee
for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)
from any Nationalized Bank before respondent Nos.2
and 3;
8
(ii) The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he
will not alienate the subject vehicle or create any third
party rights in any manner till the disposal of the
proceedings before the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under
Telangana Prohibition & Excise Act, Sangareddy, or
other appropriate authority, as the case may be.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce original
Registration Certificate of the subject vehicle at the
time of release of the vehicle.
(iv) The petitioner shall produce the subject vehicle
before the respondent authorities as and when
required.
(v) After release, if the petitioner’s subject vehicle is
involved in similar offence, the respondents are
entitled to file an appropriate application seeking for
custody of the said vehicle.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
14.05.2025
Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow.
B/o.
vs
[ad_2]
Source link