The High Court for the State of Telangana reaffirmed its power to direct conditional release of vehicles seized under allegations of transporting Public Distribution System (PDS) rice, pending the outcome of confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This decision follows earlier precedent, providing clear authority for lawyers seeking similar interim relief in future seizures, especially within Telangana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/31162/2025 of Kadamanchi Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana |
| CNR | HBHC010617452025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | T. Madhavi Devi |
| Court | High Court for State of Telangana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Telangana; persuasive in other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Follows previous order in W.P.No.657 of 2024 |
| Type of Law | Administrative/Constitutional Law (Article 226); Essential Commodities Act, 1955 |
| Questions of Law | Whether the vehicle seized for alleged illegal transport of PDS rice can be released pending confiscation proceedings. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, consistent with past decisions, vehicles seized on allegations of transporting PDS rice may be released to the owner on furnishing a bank guarantee and undertaking, provided the release is subject to the outcome of confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court confirmed it has discretionary power under Article 226 to grant such relief, and ordered similar conditions as in a prior, comparable writ petition. No costs were awarded. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P.No.657 of 2024 (decided on 09.01.2024) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Prior order of the same High Court in a materially identical case (W.P.No.657 of 2024), not disputed by government counsel. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner’s vehicle was seized on the allegation it was transporting PDS rice in connection with Crime No. 508/2025. The petitioner sought release of the vehicle during the pendency of confiscation proceedings, citing precedent. The government did not dispute the application of the prior order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Telangana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | W.P.No.657 of 2024 (Telangana High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reaffirms that vehicles seized for alleged PDS rice transportation may be released, upon furnishing of a bank guarantee and undertaking.
- Release is conditional: subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
- Lawyers may cite W.P.No.657 of 2024 and this order as binding precedent in Telangana for interim release of seized vehicles in similar situations.
- The order demonstrates that the government’s non-objection to such relief may facilitate disposal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for release of his seized vehicle, referencing an identical situation decided in W.P.No.657 of 2024.
- The Court recognized that in similar prior circumstances, vehicle release was directed subject to conditions, including a bank guarantee and undertaking.
- The State did not dispute application of that previous order or the petitioner’s entitlement.
- The High Court exercised its discretion under Article 226, following its own precedent, and ordered the release of the vehicle subject to furnishing a fixed deposit bank guarantee of Rs. 25,000 in favor of the respondent, and an undertaking not to alienate, alter, or create encumbrance on the vehicle.
- The release was explicitly stated as being subject to the result of separate confiscation proceedings under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The vehicle was seized for alleged transportation of PDS rice.
- In similar circumstances, the High Court has previously ordered conditional release of seized vehicles (W.P.No.657 of 2024).
- Requested for a similar order for interim release.
Respondents (State/Civil Supplies/Home)
- No objection or dispute was raised against the petitioner’s reliance on the previous High Court order.
- Did not contest the applicability of the prior precedent to the present case.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s Eicher vehicle (TS16UC4412) was seized by authorities on the allegation of transporting PDS rice, pertaining to Crime No. 508/2025. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking release of the vehicle pending outcome of confiscation proceedings. The petition drew attention to a prior High Court order allowing similar relief. The government respondents did not dispute the facts or the precedent cited.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant interim relief.
- Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was referred to as governing the confiscation proceedings for the vehicle in question.
- The release of the vehicle is expressly stated to be subject to the final determination under Section 6-A.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court required the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee by way of fixed deposit and an undertaking as to non-alienation, as conditions of interim release.
- Release was explicitly made conditional on the final outcome of confiscation proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.