IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33648 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.BINIL S/O. KURIAKOSE, POOVATHURA HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD., P.O. ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. EXCISE INSPECTOR EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMENT EXCISE DEPARTMENT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33648 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's vehicle has been seized on allegation of commission of an abkari offence. The petitioner approached the appropriate criminal court for release of the same. The petitioner did not succeed apparently because confiscation proceedings are pending. While so, Ext. P2 order was passed by the 1st respondent in the confiscation proceedings confiscating the vehicle. The petitioner now challenges Ext. P2 order. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that although Ext. P1 RC Book specifically showed that the vehicle was transferred to him as early as on 8-1-2005, consequent on the seizure on 17-9-2007, Ext. P2 has been passed with notice to the former registered owner, and not to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned Government Pleader submits that notice was issued only to the former registered owner because the transfer of the vehicle to the petitioner was not noticed. 3. I am not completely satisfied with the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner very well knew that his vehicle had been seized by the police on 17-9-2007. Nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the 1st respondent and requesting that he also be heard in the matter, which he had not done, whereas at the same time he approached the criminal court for release of the vehicle. All the same, technically what the petitioner submits is correct, in so far as the petitioner who is the registered owner of the vehicle, has not been served with a notice as contemplated under the Abkari Act. That being so, Ext. P2 is unsustainable for violation of principles of natural W.P.C. No. 33648/2008. -: 2 :- justice. Accordingly, Ext. P2 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh as per the provisions of the Abkari Act and pass fresh orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.