IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 634 of 2010(D) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJENDRA PILLAI, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, VISHNU VILASOM (KARIKKATHIL PUTEHN VEEDU) PANDITHITTA, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, AMBALANIRAPPU P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KERALA STATE, NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE COMPLEX, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.634 OF 2010 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a light motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-02-T-2129, which was taken into custody on the allegation that it was involved in Crime No.523/2009 of Kunnicode Police Station. According to the petitioner, pending the confiscation proceedings, by Ext.P6 notice issued on him by the 2nd respondent, he was given interim custody of the vehicle subject to payment of Rs.1,60,000/- within 15 days. He says that he could not make payment within the time specified in Ext.P6 and that although he applied for extension of time, the 2nd respondent refused his request in the absence of an order passed by this court. It is in these circumstances, according to the petitioner, he filed the writ petition praying for a direction that he be given interim custody of the vehicle pending finalization of the confiscation proceedings. 2. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instruction in the matter. According to the Government Pleader, although in Ext.P6 the petitioner was given an opportunity to get interim WPC.No.634 /2010 :2 : custody of the vehicle subject to the conditions mentioned therein, petitioner did not respond to Ext.P6. It is stated that in the meanwhile, confiscation proceedings were continued and by order dated 26.12.2009, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. Now that a final order in the confiscation proceedings has been passed as above, there arise no question of giving interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies against the final order of confiscation, which is stated to have been passed, before the appellate authority, the writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/