IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 362 of 2004(B) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.2572/2003 DATED 24/01/2003 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANADU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- G.S.ANEESH S/O. GOPI, KOCHUPOYKAYIL VEEDU, ILAMPA DESOM, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.362 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioner in O.P.No.2572 of 2003 who was the owner of the autorickshaw which was seized by the first respondent on the allegation that the passengers travelling in that autorickshaw were carrying liquor beyond the permissible limits, had sought for release of the autorickshaw. In fact, in the crime registered by the first respondent, the petitioner was not even arrayed as an accused person. 2. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 24th January, 2003 had directed the respondents to release the autorickshaw to the petitioner after making an endorsement in the R.C. Book that any transfer of the autorickshaw shall be only after obtaining clearance from the second respondent. Further, the Court had directed the second respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of the order. 3. Being aggrieved by the orders so passed by the learned Single Judge, the State is before us in this writ appeal. 4. Smt.K.Meera, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellants State would contend that the vehicle had been seized for an offence under the Abkari Act and this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction ought not to have released the autorickshaw that was seized to the owner or person claiming to be the owner of the vehicle. W.A.No.362 of 2004 2 5. The original petition is of the year 2003. The order that is passed by the Court is again in the month of January, 2003 and in that certain directions were issued to the respondents to complete the adjudication proceedings. Five years have gone by and the respondents might have taken some decision in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be necessary for us to go into the correctness or otherwise of the orders and directions issued by this Court. 6. Therefore, without going into the other details of the case, the writ appeal is disposed of as having become unnecessary. We hasten to add that the observations and directions issued by this Court shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns