IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9135 of 2009(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.KARTHIKEYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VASU, KARTHIKA VEEDU, ELAVANTHITTA P.O., MEZHUVELI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ADDL. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE DEPT., PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA RANGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 9135 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P6 and P8 orders, which are original and appellate orders in proceedings under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. The petitioner was the owner and driver of an autorickshaw. His autorickshaw was detained along with a passenger who ran away. On inspection, it was found that the vehicle contained 5.58 liters of Indian made foreign liquor contained in 31 bottles of 180 m.l. each. The passenger was a known vendor of illicit liquor. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, which resulted in Ext. P6 order of the Assistant Excise Commissioner confiscating the petitioner's vehicle on the ground that the vehicle has been used for illicit transport of liquor. The petitioner filed an appeal in which Ext. P8 order was passed rejecting the appeal. The petitioner is challenging those orders. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to prove his case. According to him, he had secured Ext. P4 letter from the Kudumbasree people on whose information the liquor was seized. Further, by Ext. P5, he had requested the Assistant Excise Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into the matter, which has not been done. He submits that in Ext. P 7 appeal he has made the same prayer. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. From the impugned orders themselves, I find that the petitioner took inconsistent stands before the Assistant Excise Commissioner and the additional Excise Commissioner-Appellate Authority. Before the Assistant Excise Commissioner, he disowned any knowledge about the liquor or the identity of the passenger whatsoever. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of W.P.C. No. 9135/2009. -: 2 :- his case before the Assistant Excise Commissioner. While arguing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Excise, counsel for the petitioner claimed that the liquor was purchased for the personal use of the two persons, namely, the petitioner and one Janardhanan who ran away from the scene. Admittedly, Sri. Janardhanan is a frequent abkari offender belonging to the petitioner's own place. When it was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner can take inconsistent stand, he again disowned such a statement by the counsel. But, I find that he has taken very same ground in Ground 4 of this writ petition also. As such, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not discharged his onus cast upon him by Section 67C(2) for proving that he had no knowledge of transport of liquor and that he had taken all care and caution for non-user of the vehicle for illicit use. That being so, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.