IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 11497 of 2005(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MEERAN SAHIB, KANNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHAKKUZHI, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. G.P. SHRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 11497/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF BY R4. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4.8.04 BY R4. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.11.04 BY R3. P4. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION TO R2 AGAINST Ext.P3. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.1.05 BY THE ASST.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM. P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.3889/05 DTD.3.2.05. P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.26.2.05. P8. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.17.3.05. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11497 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved since Exhibit P4 revision is not considered on merits by the second respondent. The issue pertains to confiscation of vehicle for the alleged involvement in an abkari offence. 2. In Exhibit P3 order passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner, it is stated as follows: “This order is liable to be taken up on revision by the Commissioner of Excise within 30 days from the date of this order”. Exhibit P4 is the revision thus filed by the petitioner before the second respondent as permitted in Exhibit P3 order. That is seen rejected in Exhibit P7 holding that no revision will lie. But, it is seen that the petitioner had approached this Court leading to Exhibit P6 judgment wherein there is a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 revision on merits. 3. Even if no revision is permitted in the rules, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; i) the W.P.(C) No.11497/05 2 petitioner was permitted and relegated by the authority who passed Exhibit P3 order to pursue the matter in revision ii) a superior Court has directed the Commissioner to dispose of the revision, it is only appropriate that Exhibit P4 is considered by the second respondent on merits. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to ignore Exhibits P7 and P8, take up Exhibit P4 afresh and consider the same on merits, with notice to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The fate of the steps taken pursuant to the interim order will depend on the order thus passed by the second respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp W.P.(C) No.11497/05 3 KURIAN JOSEPH, J. W.P.(C) No. 11497 OF 2005 J U D G M E N T 15.10.2008