IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2378 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28291/2009 Dated 08/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.NATARAJAN, KUNNATHARA HOUSE, KALLEPADAM, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 2. SHIBU, S/O.MATHEW, PINAKKAD HOUSE, VADAKKETHARA, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.NO.2378/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 12th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. An interesting question has been raised in this appeal. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He got a vehicle bearing registration No.KL - 7 AQ 5657 from the 2nd respondent, on the strength of an agreement dated 27.6.2009 and according to him, he is the owner of it, though the vehicle still remains registered in the name of the transferor, the 2nd respondent herein. The vehicle was involved in an abkari offence and the authorised officer is taking steps to confiscate the same. The appellant wants release of the vehicle. The authorised officer is competent to release the vehicle under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. When there was delay from the part of the 1st respondent, who is the authorised officer, the appellant moved this Court. But,the learned Single Judge took the view that since the vehicle is not registered in the name of the writ petitioner/appellant, the WA No.2378/2009 - 2 - writ petition filed by him for interim custody of the vehicle is not maintainable. Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. But, during the pendency of the appeal, the 1st respondent himself has come forward by issuing a communication No.R.8A.4344/2009 dated 30.10.2009, agreeing to release the vehicle to the appellant on depositing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty thousand), which is estimated to be the value of it. So, it is unnecessary to consider the Writ Appeal on merits. The only prayer of the appellant, now, is that he may be permitted to get the vehicle released on furnishing bank guarantee for the above said amount. 3. We heard the learned senior Government Pleader on the above point. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is ordered that if the appellant furnishes bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.One lakh fifty thousand) to the 1st respondent, the said respondent shall cause to release the vehicle KL-7AQ 5657 to the appellant, pending final orders in the confiscation proceedings. The point whether a person, who WA No.2378/2009 - 3 - got the vehicle on the strength of an agreement, can claim interim custody of the vehicle, is kept open. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P. Bhavadasan, Judge. nm.