High Court Kerala High Court

Gopidas vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise on 5 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Gopidas vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Excise on 5 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7098 of 2010(J)


1. GOPIDAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMANATHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.7098 OF 2010 (J)
              --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a vehicle

bearing registration No.KL-04-U- 7610. The vehicle was involved in

Crime No.20/2009 of Trissur Exchange Range. Proceedings were

initiated under Section 67 of the Abkari Act. At that stage, petitioner

approached this court and secured Ext.P4 judgment in WP(c).

No.15047/2009 directing the authorities to consider the application

made by him for interim custody of the vehicle pending finalization

of the proceedings.

2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition itself, it is

evident that though the vehicle was offered to be released subject

to furnishing security, the petitioner was incapable of furnishing

the security and therefore the vehicle was not released. In the

meanwhile adjudication proceedings continued and according to the

petitioner, evidence was closed on 4.8.2009. It is stated that final

order has not been passed so far and therefore the vehicle should

be ordered to be released pending final orders.

WPC.No.7098 /2010
:2 :

3. As already seen on an earlier occasion the vehicle was

offered to be released on the petitioner furnishing security and the

petitioner was incapable of furnishing the security. Therefore at this

stage it is not possible for this court to again direct to release the

vehicle. As already seen what remains in the confiscation

proceedings is that the final order should be passed. In my view,

the appropriate order to be passed at this stage is that the

Adjudication Officer should complete the proceedings on an

expeditious basis.

Accordingly the writ Petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to pass orders in the proceedings under Section 67 of

the Abkari Act that is pending in respect of the vehicle of the petiti

oner bearing registration No.KL-04-U- 7610. This shall be done as

expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the

date of production of a copy of the judgment.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No.7098 /2010
:3 :