IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33648 of 2008(E)
1. P.K.BINIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. EXCISE INSPECTOR
3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 33648 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 17th December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s vehicle has been seized on allegation of commission
of an abkari offence. The petitioner approached the appropriate
criminal court for release of the same. The petitioner did not succeed
apparently because confiscation proceedings are pending. While so,
Ext. P2 order was passed by the 1st respondent in the confiscation
proceedings confiscating the vehicle. The petitioner now challenges
Ext. P2 order. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that
although Ext. P1 RC Book specifically showed that the vehicle was
transferred to him as early as on 8-1-2005, consequent on the seizure
on 17-9-2007, Ext. P2 has been passed with notice to the former
registered owner, and not to the petitioner who is the registered
owner of the vehicle.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned
Government Pleader submits that notice was issued only to the former
registered owner because the transfer of the vehicle to the petitioner
was not noticed.
3. I am not completely satisfied with the conduct of the
petitioner. The petitioner very well knew that his vehicle had been
seized by the police on 17-9-2007. Nothing prevented the petitioner
from approaching the 1st respondent and requesting that he also be
heard in the matter, which he had not done, whereas at the same time
he approached the criminal court for release of the vehicle. All the
same, technically what the petitioner submits is correct, in so far as
the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle, has not been
served with a notice as contemplated under the Abkari Act. That
being so, Ext. P2 is unsustainable for violation of principles of natural
W.P.C. No. 33648/2008. -: 2 :-
justice.
Accordingly, Ext. P2 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed
to consider the matter afresh as per the provisions of the Abkari Act
and pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.