Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 671 (TS)

Rajith Kumar Mamidishetti v. State of Telangana

2025-05-14

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : 1. 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 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 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. Accordingly, the “Zoom Car” platform provides hosts. On 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 Committee 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 vehicle. 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. 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. 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 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. 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; (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.