IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 289 of 2010()
1. SURESH KUMAR.C.S, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.A. No. 289 of 2010
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. He claims to be the
registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-19-
1323. The vehicle was involved in Crime No.258/2009 of Neyyar
Dam Police Station, which was registered under sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 8 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The allegation was
that the above said vehicle, which is a motor car, was used for
transporting illicit arrack. The vehicle was seized along with the
contraband arrack. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise,
Thiruvananthapuram has initiated steps to confiscate the vehicle.
Pending confiscation, the appellant moved for release of the
vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the first respondent
herein, issued Ext.P4 communication directing him to remit the
market value of the vehicle as provided under Rule 4(2)(a) of the
Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. In
the above background, the writ petition is filed seeking the
following relief:-
WA.289/2010
: 2 :
” Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the 1st respondent to release the vehicle forthwith
to the petitioner.”
2. We notice that Ext.P4 is not under challenge in the writ
petition. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellant. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this
appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The
Rule under which Ext.P4 is passed reads as follows:-
” R.4(2)(a). The cart, vessel or
other conveyance liable to be confiscated under
the Act may be released temporarily by the
authorised officer to its owner on depositing an
amount equivalent to the market value of the
cart, vessel or other conveyance, fixed by the
Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department
or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the
rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the
Public Works Department of the State in the
Treasury Savings Account in favour of the
Commissioner of Excise.”
4. The order of the first respondent is strictly in conformity
WA.289/2010
: 3 :
with the above Rule. This Court can issue a writ of mandamus as
prayed for if the first respondent owes a duty to release the vehicle
unconditionally and the appellant has got a legal right to the
performance of that duty. The appellant has failed to show any
such duty in the first respondent or corresponding right in the
appellant. Therefore, the writ petition itself was not maintainable.
So, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. But, having regard to
the facts of the case, the first respondent may expedite the
proceedings and pass orders in the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
Sd/-
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
Sd/-
(P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. To Judge