Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18798 (AP)

DADI LOVARAJU v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/7069/2026 · 2026-03-12

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010127722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7069/2026 Between: 1. DADI LOVARAJU, S/O VENKATESWARARAO, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, M/S SRI LAKSHMI GANAPATHI TRADERS, D.NO.3- 6-345/1, LINGAVARAM COLONY, YERRAVARAM ROAD, YELESWARAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PROH. AND EXCISE KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PRATHIPADU PROH. AND EXCISE KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing orders for release of the stocks of 40 quintals of jaggery i.e., 80 bags each contains 50 Kgs., seized in F.I.R.No.26 of 2026 inspie of the petitioner's readiness to furnish third party surety, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 2 issue orders to the 3rd respondent to release the stocks, by accepting the third party surety, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to issue orders to the 3rd respondsent to release the of the stocks of 40 quintals of jaggery i.e., 80 bags each contains 50 Kgs., seized in F.I.R.No. 26 of 2026 by accepting the third party surety, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.7069 OF 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing orders for release of the stocks of 40 quintals of jaggery i.e.,80 bags each contains 50 Kgs., seized in F.I.R.No.26 of 2026 inspite of the petitioner's readiness to furnish third party surety, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to issue orders to the 3rd respondent to release the stocks, by accepting the third party surety, and to grant such other relief or reliefs…” 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in seizing and registering offence vide F.I.R.No.26 of 2026 under Section 34(e) r/w 34(2), 31(1)(f), 42(C), 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and Gur Rules Central Act, and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to release the stock of 40 quintals of jaggery i.e.,80 bags each contains 50 Kgs.,. 3. It is narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner purchased 40 quintals of the jaggery from Igloo preservations, Koraput District, Odisha State, under a valid bill of supply and loaded the said stock into Ashok Leyland Dost Vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-39-UU- 7666. While, the vehicle entered into Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner paid an agriculture market fee of Rs.1,496/-. When the said vehicle reached the Forest Check Post, Prathipadu, the 3rd respondent intercepted and detained the conveyance, notwithstanding presentation of the entire bills pertaining to stock 4 by the petitioner, on the ground that the said jaggery is transporting for manufacturing of illicit liquor. 4. Heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.149, Revenue (Excise-II) Department, dated 18.04.2017, framing certain guidelines, wherein it was held that the jaggery is not a prohibited commodity and mere possession or transportation shall not be a cause for its seizure. As the jaggery is not a prohibited commodity, no inconvenience shall be caused to the farmers or traders, dealers and users for lawful purposes, as per the memo issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.149. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court in identical matters in W.P.Nos.42673 of 2017, 9991 of 2018 and 12273 of 2020, directed the respondents therein to release the seized jaggery by imposing certain conditions. Hence, learned counsel requested to dispose of the writ petition in terms of W.P.No.42643 of 2017. 7. Learned Government Pleader admitted that several writ petitions were disposed of by this Court. This Court in W.P.No.29221 of 2025, directed the respondent authorities to release custody of black jaggery in favour of the petitioner on condition of furnishing collateral security of rupees One Lakh. Hence, requested to pass similar order. 5 8. In view of the above submissions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to release the petitioner’s stock, seized in connection with F.I.R.No.26 of 2026 dated 25.01.2026, on condition of petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.25,000\- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing collateral security for rest of the amount, subject to outcome of the further proceedings. Further, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authority concerned from proceeding further in the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 13.03.2026 KBN 6 137 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.7069 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 KBN