IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 33667 of 2007(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- CLEMENT TITUS, MYLAMMOOTTIL, AMBALAMUKKU, ELAMADU P.O., AYOOR, KOLLAM-69. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013. 3. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, CHADAYAMANGALAM EXCISE RANGE, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM-691 534. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN for R1 to R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.33667 of 2007-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, an order passed by the Commissioner of Excise in exercise of suo motu revisional authority under Section 67F of the Abkari Act. Even going by Ext.P3, it has to be noticed that the petitioner, the registered owner of the autorickshaw in question had entrusted the vehicle to driver Renjith essentially on a day-to-day lease basis and it was therefore that the authority of the first instance thought it fit to be a case where confiscation need not be ordered. That was a possible view on records and not a case where a glaring illegality or demonstrable irregularity or breach of law was established. Therefore, the exceptionally exceptional power of a suo motu revision under Section 67F was not to be invoked. WP(C)33667/2007 -: 2 :- This is all the more so because, the power under the said section is one to ensure that a revisional power is available to interfere with cases where glaring illegality or breach of the mandate of law is clearly established. This is a case where a reasonable plausible view as taken by the subordinate authorities was available. In the case in hand, the Circle Inspector having given a particular report and the Assistant Excise Commissioner having taken a view, which cannot be treated as unavailable on records, Ext.P3 does not stand. The same is accordingly quashed. Following the interim order, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner on production of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290708