ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sai Krishna J, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent and Ms. Swetcha Tekuru, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Petitioner has obtained licence for sale of Indian Liquor/Foreign Liquor by Bar to be consumed on the premises in Form - 2B as per Rule 4 of Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of selling by Bar and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005, and is running a bar and restaurant in the name and style of M/s.Chithra Restaurant & Bar at Sircilla, within the limits of 2 nd respondent Municipality, from 2019. Vide order dated 04.11.2024, he has obtained renewal license for the excise year 2024-25. It is valid from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2025. He has specifically stated that his father is the Town President of BRS Party and his mother is an Ex-Chairman of Sircilla Municipality. While the matter stood thus, due to political rivalry, on 29.01.2025, during pre-lunch, 2 nd respondent has seized the subject bar without following due procedure laid down under law on the ground that petitioner does not possess valid trade license. Therefore, questioning the said inaction of 2 nd respondent, petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Vide order dated 31.01.2025, this Court directed 2 nd respondent to unseal the subject bar immediately. 4. 2 nd respondent had filed counter-affidavit contending that petitioner had obtained 2-B license in collusion with District Prohibition and Excise officials and committed many violations. Merely possessing an excise license does not exempt the establishment from obtaining a trade license from the municipality. He has obtained trade license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, by way of misrepresentation. However, possession of the said license does not override the requirement of obtaining trade license under the Act, 2019. 5. It is further contended that non-payment of trade license fee of Rs.27,300/- for the financial year 2024-25 was admitted by petitioner and therefore, seizure of the subject bar on 29.01.2025 is lawful. Police authorities were called only for maintaining law and order as required by municipal enforcement guidelines. The presence of media was not orchestrated by Municipality. The payment of Rs.27,300/- made by petitioner towards trade license fee on 29.01.2025 does not retroactively validate the unauthorized operation of the subject bar. Police authorities were called only for maintaining law and order as required by municipal enforcement guidelines. The presence of media was not orchestrated by Municipality. The payment of Rs.27,300/- made by petitioner towards trade license fee on 29.01.2025 does not retroactively validate the unauthorized operation of the subject bar. The subject bar was seized before the payment was made by the petitioner and therefore, subsequent payment does not entitle the petitioner to resume operations without proper municipal clearance. It is further contended that the allegation made by petitioner that the municipal authorities acted on the instructions of 3 rd respondent i.e., District Collector out of political vendetta is false and baseless. 6. In paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the said counter-affidavit, 2 nd respondent has categorically admitted about the receipt of representation dated 29.01.2025 submitted by petitioner but the unsealing process requires administrative clearance, verification and legal compliance. The same is in consideration. Action taken by 2 nd respondent was solely based on statutory non-compliance. 2 nd respondent is nothing to do with the petitioner’s political affiliations. 7. By placing reliance on the Telangana Municipalities Trade Licenses (Regulation of Issue and Renewal) Rules, 2020 (for short ‘the Rules, 2020’), learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would specifically contend that 2 nd respondent has no power to seize the subject bar on the ground that petitioner does not possess valid trade license. He would also contend that as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 2020, 2 nd respondent can collect penalty of 25% of trade fee from any person, who is carrying out trade without license. 8. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner has obtained certificate of trade license-renewal dated 29.01.2025 by paying an amount of Rs.13,650/- towards late fee apart from paying Rs.27,300/- towards trade license fee. He has also obtained certificate of new trade license dated 30.03.2025, which is valid up to 31.03.2026, by paying an amount of Rs.27,300/- towards trade license fee. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, it is relevant to extract Rule 8 of the Rules, 2020, as under. “ 8. He has also obtained certificate of new trade license dated 30.03.2025, which is valid up to 31.03.2026, by paying an amount of Rs.27,300/- towards trade license fee. 9. In the light of the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, it is relevant to extract Rule 8 of the Rules, 2020, as under. “ 8. Penalty: (1) Any person who is carrying out trade without license, shall be levied with penalty of 25% of trade fee till three months period from starting of trade and after three months of the starting of the trade, a penalty of 50% of trade fee shall be levied till the person running the trade obtain the license. (2) Any person who is carrying out trade without license renewal, shall be levied with penalty of 25% of trade fee till June of the year and from 1 st of July of the year, a penalty of 50% of trade fee shall be levied till the person running the trade obtain the trade renewal certificate.” 10. As rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, if the trade license is not renewed by petitioner and if he does not possess valid trade license, at the most, 2 nd respondent can levy penalty of 25% of trade fee on petitioner. But, 2 nd respondent has no power to seize the subject bar under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act, 2019’), and the Rules, 2020. 11. It is relevant to note that though 2 nd respondent contended that he has seized the subject bar of petitioner for non-payment of trade license fee and for not possessing valid trade license, he failed to explain the power under which the bar can be seized for non-payment of trade license-renewal fee and not possessing valid trade license. 12. As discussed supra, as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 2020, 2 nd respondent can at the most levy penalty on petitioner, but he cannot seize the subject bar. He has not issued any notice to petitioner before seizure of the subject bar. The entire action of 2 nd respondent is highhanded and in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down in the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. 13. He has not issued any notice to petitioner before seizure of the subject bar. The entire action of 2 nd respondent is highhanded and in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down in the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner has submitted a representation along with copy of order dated 31.01.2025 to 2 nd respondent with a request to unseal the subject bar. Even then, 2 nd respondent did not unseal the bar. Therefore, petitioner had filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.458 of 2025. 14. In the said Contempt Case, 2 nd respondent has filed counter-affidavit contending that he has received the said representation from petitioner along with copy of order dated 31.01.2025. Even then, he has not unsealed the subject bar. According to him, to implement the aforesaid order passed by this Court, he requires administrative clearance, verification and legal compliance from the District Collector. The same is in consideration. 15. The said contention of 2 nd respondent is contemptuous, in violation of order dated 31.01.2025 in the present Writ Petition and also in violation of the procedure laid down in the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. He cannot contend that to implement the order passed by this Court, he requires administrative clearance, verification etc. The aforesaid entire action of 2 nd respondent is highhanded. As rightly contended by petitioner that to please the political bosses, 2 nd and 3 rd respondents sealed the subject bar in utter violation of the procedure laid down under the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020, apart from violation of principles of natural justice. To please the political bosses, they cannot take the law into their hands and seize the subject bar. If there is any violation including non-possessing of valid trade license, 2 nd respondent has to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. He cannot seize the subject bar without following the said procedure. 16. During the course of hearing, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent has produced panchanama dated 02.04.2025 and contended that 2 nd respondent has unsealed the subject bar yesterday i.e., 02.04.2025 at 5:45 p.m. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner confirmed the said fact. 17. 16. During the course of hearing, Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent has produced panchanama dated 02.04.2025 and contended that 2 nd respondent has unsealed the subject bar yesterday i.e., 02.04.2025 at 5:45 p.m. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner confirmed the said fact. 17. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed declaring the action of 2 nd respondent in sealing the subject bar of petitioner as illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and the procedure laid down under the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. 18. It is relevant to note that subject bar was seized on 29.01.2025 by Ms. Lavanya, the then Commissioner of Sircilla Municipality. She was transferred on the same day i.e., 29.01.2025 and the present Commissioner, Sri S. Sammaiah, is present in the Court and according to him, he was posted as Commissioner of Sircilla Municipality i.e., 2 nd respondent, on 29.01.2025, and assumed charge on the same day i.e., 29.01.2025 during post-lunch session. 19. It is further relevant to note that Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration is the transferring authority. He cannot transfer the then Commissioner on 29.01.2025 and post the present Commissioner as Commissioner, Sircilla Municipality, by directing to him to assume charge on the same day. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the present Commissioner was Commissioner, Huzurabad Municipality, which is 80 kms away from the subject municipality i.e., Sircilla Municipality. Thus, the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration transferred the then Commissioner, who seized the subject bar, on 29.01.2025 and posted her at Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Further, he directed the present Commissioner viz., S. Sammaiah to assume charge on the same day i.e., on 29.01.2025 during post-lunch session. The entire action of transferring the earlier Commissioner and posting the present Commissioner is highhanded and contrary to the procedure of transfer policy and the procedure laid down in the Act, 2019, and the Rules, 2020. In the light of the same, the then Commissioner and present Commissioner of Sircilla Municipality, 3 rd respondent, and the Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration are warned not to repeat the same in future. 20. In paragraph No.14 of the writ affidavit, petitioner specifically contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- towards bar license for the excise year 2024-25. The same is valid up to 30.09.2025. 20. In paragraph No.14 of the writ affidavit, petitioner specifically contended that he has paid an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- towards bar license for the excise year 2024-25. The same is valid up to 30.09.2025. Due to the said illegal action of 2 nd respondent, he incurred loss of an amount of Rs.11,500/- per day towards license fee and 30 families depending on the subject bar are subjected to mental agony. 21. In the light of the said submissions and also the aforesaid discussion, liberty is granted to petitioner to submit a representation to Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad, to refund or adjust the said amount from the license fee. Thereupon, it is for the Commissioner to consider the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.