IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 1939 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.23794/1999 Dated 13/07/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LAKSHMI @ VALLI, KARAKUNNATH, NADUVATTOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. 2. SASIKALA, W/O.LATE MANOHARAN, KARAKUNNATH, NADUVATTOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R2 SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM FOR R2 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R2 SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1939 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioners are the respondents. They are the legal heirs of late Manoharan, who was the owner of a Mahindra Jeep, bearing registration No.KLL 6345. The vehicle was seized by the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Pattambi, on 11.8.1992, on the allegation that it was found transporting toddy and illicitly distilled arrack. According to Manoharan, there was an altercation between him and the Excise Inspector, on the very same day. Because of the ill-will generated by the said incident, his Jeep was fraudulently seized. The Assistant Excise Commissioner issued show cause notice to Manoharan, as part of confiscation proceedings. He submitted his reply, denying the allegations. In 1995, Manoharan expired and thereafter, there was long delay in finalising the proceedings. Finally, the confiscation order, Ext.P3, was passed on 23.7.1998. The respondents herein filed an appeal before the Excise Commissioner. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P4, on 5.8.1999. Challenging Exts.P3 and P4, the Original Petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed the delay in passing WA NO.1939/05 2 the final orders and therefore, quashed those orders. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Judge, the respondents in the Original Petition preferred this Writ Appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We notice that the vehicle was being plied by Manoharan, since 1993, as it was released to him by the Excise Commissioner. In 1992, the value of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.20,000/-. Now, 18 years are over. Now, the value of the vehicle is likely to be negligible and the very existence of the Jeep is also doubted. Owing to efflux of time, we think, no effective remedy can be given to the appellants. But, we observe that the view taken by the learned Single Judge for interfering with the impugned orders is not justified and the same will not act as a precedent against the appellants in other cases. Subject to that observation, this Writ Appeal is dismissed, having regard to the special facts of this case. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1939 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 22nd March, 2010.