IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8769 of 2011(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. JESSY PHILIP, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. PRASAD, PRASAD BHAVAN, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR. 2. R. RAVEECHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR, MULLAPONE HOUSE, EZHUMATTOOR MURI, EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE,MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.SIKKY RAVISHANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, (ENFORCEMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689 586. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR. 689 588. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.8769 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 21st March, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KL-26-1579 and according to her, the said vehicle was sold to the second petitioner as per Ext.P2 agreement. The contention of the petitioners is that while some friends of the second petitioner were using the said vehicle it was taken into custody by the third respondent alleging that three of them were seen consuming liquor by the side of the vehicle and the fourth person who was on the driving seat fled from the scene on seeing the Police. 8 litres and 625 ml. of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the vehicle. Against the persons who were apprehended from the scene of occurrence Crime No.444/2009 of Keezhvaipur Police Station was registered under section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. The vehicle was taken into custody and it is now kept in the custody of the second respondent. Later, the vehicle was produced before the third respondent. The petitioners sought for release of the vehicle and for that purpose they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.36898 of 2009. Subsequently, the third respondent passed Ext.P6 order confiscating the vehicle. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6, an WP(C).No.8769/2011 2 appeal was preferred and it was dismissed by the second respondent as per Ext.P7. This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Crl.M.C.No.1525 of 2010 filed by one Haripillai, the 4th person involved in the aforesaid crime, with the prayer to quash the crime is pending before this Court. As already noticed hereinbefore, the first petitioner is admittedly, the registered owner of the vehicle in question. True that, she has entered into Ext.P2 agreement with the second petitioner. Under such circumstances, how the vehicle in question came to be in the possession of the friends of the second petitioner is not sufficiently explained in this writ petition. The allegation is that some friends of the second petitioner were seen consuming liquor by the side of the vehicle and another friend was seen sitting in the driver's seat. 8 litres 625 ml. of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the vehicle and accordingly, a crime was registered against them. The prayer of the petitioners is that the second respondent should have found that adequate measures to prevent the misuse of the vehicle were taken by the first petitioner. Having gone through the contentions raised in this writ petition I am at a loss to understand what is the basis for such a contention. In Ext.P6, the third respondent considered all the aspects of the issue. The petitioners cannot be heard to say in the circumstances, that they have taken WP(C).No.8769/2011 3 adequate measures to prevent the misuse of the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the question of interim custody of the vehicle the third respondent has passed an order confiscating the vehicle. Therefore, they took up the decision of the third respondent in appeal before the second respondent. Evidently, the second respondent considered the question as to whether the first petitioner in her capacity as the registered owner of the vehicle had taken adequate precautions against the misuse of the vehicle. Such a question was considered to decide whether the first petitioner is entitled to the benefit under section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act. Under what circumstances the vehicle came into possession of the friends of the second petitioner have not been explained and therefore, I cannot find any fault with the second respondent in coming to the conclusion that the first petitioner had not taken adequate precautions against the misuse of the vehicle and therefore, not entitled to the benefit of section 67C(2). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said conclusion cannot be said to be without any basis. It is a plausible conclusion arrived at by the second respondent. Taking note of the circumstances, it was found that the vehicle could be permanently released to the first petitioner provided she is willing to remit the market value of the said vehicle in compliance with Rule 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) WP(C).No.8769/2011 4 Rules, 1996. Mere assertion by the petitioners that they had taken adequate steps against misuse of the vehicle cannot be accepted in view of the allegations that culminated in the registration of Crime No.444/2009 of Keezhvaipur Police Station. I do not find any reason at all for interfering with Exts.P6 and P7. Exts.P6 and P7 are orders passed within the jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge