IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 589 of 2009 (T) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.4269/2008 IN OS.278/2007 of ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. ICICI BANK, RAPG DIVISION, NEAR KOILY HOSPITAL, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS DEBT RECOVERY MANAGER, SUNIL G.P. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. ANANTHAN P.K., S/O. KUNHAN,PULLIYAMAKKAL HOUSE, VEERPADU PAYAM, KANNUR. 2. SHYLA, W/O. ANANTHAN P.K., PULIYAMAKKAL HOUSE, VEERPADU PAYAM, KANNUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KANNUR. 4. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.589 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed by I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd. who is the plaintiff in O.S.278/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery. The suit is one filed for a declaration that proceedings of the third defendant confiscating vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-K-9015 and the proceedings of the fourth defendant confirming the same are illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff; for directing defendants 3 to 5 to pay the plaintiff Rs.3,35,736/- with interest at the rate of 5.25% from out of the sale proceeds of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-K-9015 and in case the court finds that defendants 3 to 5 are not liable to pay the sale proceeds to the Bank, directing W. P. C. No.589 of 2009 -2- defendant 1 and 2 to pay Rs.3,35,736/- with interest at the rate of 5.25% till realisation. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that a petition was filed by the plaintiff in the court below calling for the entire documents relating to seizure of the vehicle which bears file No.C3- 1342/2006 dt.29/08/06; that it was disallowed by the court directing the plaintiff to apply for and obtain certified copies of the documents required but after obtaining certified copies the plaintiff moved I.A.4269/08 under Sections 30 and 151 of the C.P.C for discovery of the file maintained by respondents 3 to 5 by directing them to produce the original file and that was dismissed by the court below and that the dismissal of the petition vide Ext.P4 order is W. P. C. No.589 of 2009 -3- unsustainable and has to be set aside. 3. The court below has observed in Ext.P4 order that the contention that the signature of the person who signed the order will not be found in the certified copy is not at all a reason for calling for the original file; that admittedly the vehicle was involved in the commission of an Abkari offence and the vehicle was subject to confiscation in proceedings initiated by the authorised officer and that was confirmed also by the appellate authority and that copy of the proceedings has been issued to the person who applied for copy and that the petitioner has no case that he applied for copy of any other document but that was not supplied. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to say as to which are the documents applied for of which copy was not supplied. It cannot be W. P. C. No.589 of 2009 -4- disputed that the vehicle involved in an Abkari offence is liable to confiscation. A financier advancing amounts for purchase of vehicles should be aware that such situations also may arise. It cannot be contended for a moment that vehicles purchased availing of finance cannot be confiscated even when it is involved in an Abkari offence. The plaintiff will have to resort to some other method for realisation of the amounts and they have no right to insist that the entire file regarding confiscation has to be produced before court for the sole reason that their interest in the case is that they were the ones who advanced money for purchase of the vehicle. The order of the court below refusing to direct production of the originals by the Excise Authorities who are respondents 3 to 5 cannot be faulted in the circumstances. W. P. C. No.589 of 2009 -5- 4. This Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-