BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A BILASPUR , . Singka Beam In the Matter of w.P.No. i [3‘5 (‘1 Izoos. PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Nonhare, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Heeral Lal Nonhare, resident of 145 /B—1, M.A. Type, Township, Rajhara Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department ,of Excise Mantralay, D.K‘S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2, Commissioner, Excise, Mantralay, D.K.S. Bhawan, ' Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Collector, Distt. Durg (ChhattiSgarh). 4. Station House Officer,’ Police Station Rajhara, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS /1’ . wy/ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE. T 2 i Shri Saxljay K. Agarwal, CO‘msel for the petitioner. ‘ Shri Sum'l SiJiha, Addl. Advocate General for the State. § Considering the nature of the prayer made, the matter is mike]; up dum'ng The vacation ani on the prayer' and consent of leaned. counsel for the petitio ner and Ithe respondent, the matter ie being dispoeed of. The petitioner is the owner of. the Motor Vehicle (Mahindra Jeep) bearing regisn‘g tion No. M.P—24-G—6434 which was seized in connection with an oifence under Section 34(1) A ( x A (2) of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 (as amended by the / Amendment Act, 2000 ). A chalan was flied before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balod, 1:)ist Durg a‘nd after I being tried, the petitioner has been acqliuitted of the charges named against him, Since h' uor was being transported as alleged and the vehicle was se d, a case was also registered for confiscation of the vehicle question before the Collector, Burg vide Case No. 18] 2001 ' which an order of coniiscation erewith, the petitioner has was passed. Aggn'eved HieW a; w—rv WW§wW *amm I } lref;erred an appealunder Secti (Eommissioner, Excise, Chhattis Q : The grievance of the petit acqlliitted, the order of congisca' be quashed and the vehicle is 11 to him. Since an appeal against a been filed, the Court feels that :iit would be appropriate for th Excise Commissioner — respom th/e appeal on merits. Considexing the facts and respondent no.2 is directed to i by the petitioner within a perioc' communication/ receipt of this o: Court is not expressing any petitioner’s appeal which w: Commissioner on its own merit directed. 3n 47—B of the Act as amended garh. .oner is that since he has been ion (Annexure P/ 1)V is liable to 11316 to be released and restored he order of confiscation has lent no.2! herein to dispose of x circumstances of the case, the s lispose ogf the appeal preferred E of four'véieeks from the date of i rder. It is made clear that the )pinion on the merits of the 11 be disposed of by the and in ac cordance with law, as [@W xiKrGE x x} ’ Hy \‘ ‘ ‘ ‘> 2 n. . w “HHIW U’lWtJm HJHHN xvw i $Wm Sd/- P-C’Naik Judge E 'on is disposediof. Consequly, ..P.. 14[ fo lief, 1.A‘._No'.4701[20333. for ‘urgent hean‘ng and S‘ummer Vacation also A,No.47'02/2003 Lf‘or hearing during ‘ \ § 1 E r Iget'ml ‘ tei‘im re 3 $tand disposed of. i. k E 1 1 g. , , Wwtwm mmv§§r mtl MWNo 54 2003 r