IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18523 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HARIS A.J., S/O.ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 37 YEARS, FOUR - H MANZIL, MANIPURAM P.O. KODUVALLY, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. MR. T.V. GEORGE MR. JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, INTELLIGENCE INSPECTION SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.III, ALAPPUZHA. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KVAT, CIRCLE - II, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18523 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of the mini lorry bearing No. KL 7 BK 5473 in which some electronic items were being transported from Aluva to Kayamkulam at the odd hours on 24..6.2009. 2. During the course of transit as above, the vehicle was intercepted by the first respondent at Cherthala and on scrutiny of the relevant records it was revealed that, the goods were being transported without any valid documents as contemplated under Section 46 (3) of the Act, which led to the detention of the vehicle as well as the goods by issuing Ext.P9 notice, asking the parties concerned to furnish security to the extent as specified therein. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition stating that, the discrepancies pointed out in Ext.P9 were only because of a mistake committed by the driver of the vehicle, who happened to carry a wrong delivery note in place of the actual one and that immediately on realizing the mistake proper delivery note as borne by Ext.P2 was taken to the departmental authorities to substantiate the actual facts and figures, though the same was not accepted by the said authority, which hence is sought to be interfered by this Court. WP (C) No.18523 of 2009 : 2 : 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement pointing out that, the actual delivery note accompanying the goods was dated on 21.06.2009, whereas the invoices were dated 23.6.2009. The invoice number as well as the date and amount very much differed from the entries in the delivery note and the transportation of the goods by more than one consignment by using one delivery note was suspected, under which circumstances, the first respondent issued Ext.P9. 3. It is also pointed out in paragraph 2 of the statement that on serving Ext.P9, the 'dealer' had filed reply on 24.6.2009 admitting the mistake, however stating that it was only attributable to the driver of the vehicle. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the mistake having been admitted, the party has to satisfy the demand for furnishing the security deposit, as required in Ext.P9 for releasing the goods. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, as contended in paragraph 8 of the statement, that the concerned 'dealer' has not chosen to approach this Court and that the present Writ Petition has been filed by the 'owner of the vehicle', who cannot sustain any prayer to release the goods, which was being transported in contravention of the statutory requirement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition was filed only as a measure of bonafides and taking note of the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle, particularly since WP (C) No.18523 of 2009 : 3 : the insinuating and incriminating circumstances were resulted because of the mistake on the part of the driver. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the petitioner is only anxious of his vehicle. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for releasing the lorry and that the department can proceed against the 'dealer' retaining the goods conveyed in the said vehicle. 4. After hearing both the sides, the respondents are directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner after retaining the goods. The petitioner will cause the goods to be unloaded in the particular godown or premises to be pointed out by the first respondent within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereafter the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner. This will be without prejudice to the right of the dealer or the petitioner to have the goods as well as the vehicle released by satisfying the demand in Ext.P9 effecting the Security Deposit by furnishing Bank Guarantee or otherwise to the satisfaction of the respondents. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd