IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7098 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOPIDAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KANDATHICHIRA HOUSE, MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THRISSUR EXCISE RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THROUGH THE GOVT.PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.K. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7098 OF 2010 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-04-U- 7610. The vehicle was involved in Crime No.20/2009 of Trissur Exchange Range. Proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Abkari Act. At that stage, petitioner approached this court and secured Ext.P4 judgment in WP(c). No.15047/2009 directing the authorities to consider the application made by him for interim custody of the vehicle pending finalization of the proceedings. 2. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition itself, it is evident that though the vehicle was offered to be released subject to furnishing security, the petitioner was incapable of furnishing the security and therefore the vehicle was not released. In the meanwhile adjudication proceedings continued and according to the petitioner, evidence was closed on 4.8.2009. It is stated that final order has not been passed so far and therefore the vehicle should be ordered to be released pending final orders. WPC.No.7098 /2010 :2 : 3. As already seen on an earlier occasion the vehicle was offered to be released on the petitioner furnishing security and the petitioner was incapable of furnishing the security. Therefore at this stage it is not possible for this court to again direct to release the vehicle. As already seen what remains in the confiscation proceedings is that the final order should be passed. In my view, the appropriate order to be passed at this stage is that the Adjudication Officer should complete the proceedings on an expeditious basis. Accordingly the writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders in the proceedings under Section 67 of the Abkari Act that is pending in respect of the vehicle of the petiti oner bearing registration No.KL-04-U- 7610. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.7098 /2010 :3 :