IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36987 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M.JOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MAPPANACHERY VEEDU, INCHITHOTTY, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-686 691. BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THOMAS SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. EXCISE INSPECTOR, KOTHAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691, (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.62/2010 OF KOTHAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE). 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 36987 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-07/Y 1425, is arrayed as the first accused in crime No.62/2010 of Kothamangalam Excise Range registered under Section 55 (a) and (i) of the Abkari Act. The alleged case is that the petitioner was transporting 18 bottles containing 500 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor on 14.9.2010 and on the same day he was arrested. Subsequently, he has approached the second respondent for interim custody of the aforesaid vehicle on execution of bank guarantee as is obvious from Ext.P2. On being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of consideration of the said request the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 33298/2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petition submitted by him for the aforesaid purpose. After such consideration, the second respondent passed Ext.P2 order rejecting the request of the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicle on execution of bank guarantee. The petitioner was also required W.P.(C) NO.36987/2010 2 to comply with the specific directions contemplated under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules'). It is challenging the said order that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 35588/2010 held that the power under article 226 of the constitution of India could not be asked for, or granted, as a matter of course in matters relating to interim custody of vehicles involved in abkari offences. Exercise of said jurisdiction of this Court is warranted only in exceptional cases. Evidently, in this case, the petitioner has been arrayed as the first accused in crime No.62/2010 of Kothamangalam Excise Range. As per Ext.P2 the petitioner was required only to comply with the conditions under Rule 4(2) (a) of the Rules for getting interim custody of the vehicle while rejecting his request for its custody on bank guarantee. I do not find any exceptional circumstance to interfere with the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is not merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36987/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36987/2010 4