IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3113 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH P.B, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.THE LATEE BALAKRISHNAN, SRAMBIKAL HOUSE MEVADA PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 620. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE KOTTAYAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALA POLICE STATION, PALA,KOTTOAYAM DI KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. BINU, PAZHOOR HOUSE,KANJIRAPPALLY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3113 OF 2010 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a Maruthi Car bearing Reg. No.KL 5T 6530. Admittedly, contraband liquor was seized from the vehicle and that lead to the registration of crime No.199/2007 of Pala Police Station under the provisions of the Abkari Act. Proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Abkari Act against the vehicle. After due enquiry and adjudication, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. Petitioner filed appeal against the said order and that was rejected by Ext.P2 order of the appellate authority. Though he had filed Ext.P4 revision along with an application for interim relief, this writ petition was thereafter filed complaining that orders have not been passed on Ext.P4 or the application filed for interim custody along with the said revision. 2. The case was adjourned for the Government Pleader to obtain instructions. Government Pleader on instructions state that on Ext.P4 the petitioner was heard on 13.8.2009. It is stated that thereafter the revision was rejected. It is also informed that WPC.No. 3113/2010 :2 : subsequently the sale notice was published and the vehicle was auctioned on 28.1.2010. Thus the premise on which the writ petition was filed that the revision petition was not considered by the revisional authority can be seem to be incorrect and if so it must be said that the petitioner has not disclosed the true facts. 3. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been served a copy of the order passed in the revision. If that be the case, it is directed that on the production of a copy of the judgment the 2nd respondent is directed to serve a copy of the order passed on Ext.P4 to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 3113/2010 :3 :