IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23688 of 2010(I)
1. DR. K.P.VISWANATHAN, S/O. PADMANABHAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.V.HAREESH, S/O. DR. K.P.VISWANATHAN,
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
... Respondent
2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :03/08/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.23688/2010-I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of vehicle
bearing registration No.KL-26-A-3478 on 13/06/2010 by the
Excise party.
2. The first petitioner is an Ayurvedic Physician and
he is having registration as an Ayurvedic Physician and has
started a manufacturing unit of Ayurvedic medicines at
Koodal in Pathanamthitta District with the name, ‘Amrutha
Arya Drugs’. He has got required licence for the
manufacture of various drugs, from the competent Excise
authorities and the same has been produced as Ext.P1 which
has been renewed upto 31/03/2011. He has also received
licence for the sale of spirituous preparations and true
copy of the licence has been produced as Ext.P2 which is
renewed upto 31/03/2011. True copy of the whole sale
licence which is also renewed upto 31/03/2011 is produced
as Ext.P3. It is asserted that he is also having required
licence under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
3. The second petitioner is the son of the first
petitioner and he is the registered owner of vehicle
bearing registration No.KL-26-A-3478.
W.P.(C). No.23688/2010
-:2:-
4. A case has been registered against the petitioners
and the driver of the vehicle, as Excise Crime No.18/2010
of Excise Range Office, Pazhayannur for the offences under
Rule 9, 10(1) and 17 of the Spirituous Preparations Rules
and Section 56(a) and (b) of the Abkari Act as well as
Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation is
that on intercepting the vehicle it was found that the
arishtams and asavams were excess in quantity, in the
vehicle, which is denied by the petitioners. Ext.P5 is the
copy of the mahazar, Ext.P6 is the copy of the Crime and
Occurrence Report and Ext.P7 is the true copy of the report
submitted by the third respondent before the J.F.C.M Court,
Vadakkanchery. By Ext.P8, the second petitioner has sought
for an order to release the vehicle. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have got
required permits and, therefore, the allegations cannot be
sustained and no confiscation proceedings can be initiated
also.
5. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents. It is submitted that the reports have
been received by the first respondent and the matter is
being considered.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that there are two permits and those were taken possession
of by the third respondent. But, one alone is mentioned in
W.P.(C). No.23688/2010
-:3:-
the report submitted before the J.F.C.M. Court. It is
further submitted that if these two permits are examined,
it can be found that confiscation proceedings are
unsustainable. It is upto the petitioners to submit copies
of the permits to justify their contentions. It is further
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
before initiating any confiscation proceedings, the first
respondent may be directed to consider whether such
proceedings will lie at all. It is upto the petitioners to
submit all the available materials before the first
respondent and, before initiating proceedings of
confiscation under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, the first
respondent will consider these materials and take an
appropriate decision also. Ext.P8 application for interim
custody of the vehicle will be also considered and
appropriate orders will be passed as expeditiously as
possible within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioners will
produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of
this Judgment before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms