IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1196 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14864/2009 Dated 29/05/2009 APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER P.K. RAJAN, S/O.P.K. KUTTAPPAN, KOIKKPATHOOR HOUSE, THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1. DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1196 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03/N-2929. The vehicle was seized by the excise officials on 31.3.2009 on the allegation that it was used for transportation of Indian made Foreign Liquor. Proceedings were initiated to confiscate the vehicle. Ext.P2 is the show cause notice issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 reply stating that the show cause notice is vague and, therefore, he is disabled from defending his case properly. He also prayed for release of the vehicle pending adjudication proceedings. The Writ Petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the competent authority to release the vehicle to the writ petitioner provisionally on his furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle. 2. The present grievance voiced before us by the appellant is that he apprehends that his vehicle may be confiscated without giving him an effective opportunity to reply to Ext.P2. The appellant further apprehends W.A.1196/2009 2 that orders may be passed without hearing him. If the relevant documents are not furnished to him, he will be prejudiced and that will vitiate the confiscation proceedings. Likewise, violation of the principles of natural justice concerning hearing him will also vitiate the decision. At this stage, this Court cannot assume that the confiscating authority will act contrary to law. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is premature in relation to the aforementioned grievances. In the judgment under appeal, the above grievances were not considered, presumably for the reason that those were not raised before the learned Single Judge. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The appellant has a right to get the relevant documents which may be relied on by the confiscating authority to pass adverse orders against him. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The first respondent will endeavour to complete the confiscation proceedings, if so far not completed, as expeditiously as possible. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A.1196/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO. 1196/2009 JUDGMENT 11th June, 2009 W.A.1196/2009 4