High Court Kerala High Court

Smt.Anitha vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Smt.Anitha vs Deputy Commissioner on 28 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19858 of 2010(F)


1. SMT.ANITHA, AGED 36 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJU THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :28/06/2010

 O R D E R
                 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                   -------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C)No.19858 of 2010
                      ---------------------------------
         DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JUNE, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of an autorickshaw with register

No.KL-37-4468. The vehicle was taken into custody on

11.6.2009 alleging offences under Sections 55(a) and (i) of the

Abkari Act, for carrying more than three litres of permitted

quantity of IMFL.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this Writ

Petition is that without serving a copy of the order of

confiscation, steps are taken to auction the vehicle.

3. Exhibit P2 is the application submitted by the

petitioner seeking for interim custody of the vehicle. It is

submitted by the petitioner that he had entrusted the matter to

an Advocate and she was kept in the dark about the proceedings

leading to the confiscation.

4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions

submitted that the order of confiscation which was passed on

17.3.2010 by the Deputy Commissioner, Idukki was sent by

registered post to the petitioner with A/D card on 24.3.2010.

W.P.(C)No.19858/10 -2-

But, neither the registered Thapal nor the A/D card has returned

so far. A communication has been sent to the Post Master, Head

Post Office, Thodupuzha requesting to inform whether the

confiscation order of the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner.

It is also mentioned that the petitioner has submitted an

application dated 18.6.2010 seeking for release of the vehicle on

deposit of the value of the vehicle.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner has got a right to challenge the order of

confiscation before the appellate authority and a direction may be

issued to furnish a copy of the order, in the light of the fact that

so far the same has not been served. Going by the written

instructions received by the learned Government Pleader also it is

clear that the copy of the order sent through registered post has

not been served on the petitioner and the A/D card has not been

returned so far. Therefore, for a proper determination of the

matter, it is only just and proper that a direction is issued to the

respondent herein to furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner

on the petitioner approaching the respondent. Therefore the

petitioner can appear before the respondent and a copy of the

W.P.(C)No.19858/10 -3-

order will be furnished on usual terms to the petitioner. If the

petitioner is aggrieved by the order, it is upto the petitioner to

seek appropriate remedy by way of appeal before the Appellate

Authority.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

dsn