IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16106 of 2009(G)
1. SANTHOSH PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,
3. THE S.I. OF POLICE KARIMANAL POLICE
4. A.K. PUSHPARAJ, TODDY SHOP NO. 26/08-09,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 16106 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims that he is the registered owner of a
vehicle, which was allegedly involved in an abkari offence and is
presently being proceeded against for confiscation. He filed an
application before the competent authority for interim custody of
the vehicle. The rules provide for interim custody on the terms
and conditions which are also statutorily regulated. There is no
reason why the concerned officers do not consider the interim
custody application, at least within one week of filing of such
application. It is therefore directed that the petitioner’s
application, which is stated to be lying with the competent
authority for the last nearly two months shall be taken up,
considered and disposed of within two weeks of the production of
the copy of this judgment. The view of this court in this judgment
that such applications should be finally disposed of within two
weeks shall gain attention of all competent authorities, exercising
the function of granting interim custody of vehicles, pending
WP(C)16106/2009 2
confiscation proceedings. The learned Government Pleader will
ensure that this judgment gets noticed by the Excise
Commissioner for appropriate executive instructions, if found
necessary.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/12/6