IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 627 of 2010(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M. JAYACHANDRAN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARAFA BUILDING,COURT ROAD, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 3. DR. PREMA GOPINATHAN, GOPIKA CHANDAKUNNU, NILAMBUR -42, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).627/2010 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is an Insurance Company. According to the petitioner, Dr.Prema Gopinathan, the 3rd respondent herein had purchased a 'Tyoto Qualis' vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 10N 6970, which was insured with the petitioner. The vehicle was stolen on 27.12.2006 and a Crime was registered at the instance of the 3rd respondent and the case is stated to have been closed as 'untraceable'. The 3rd respondent thereupon claimed compensation and accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs.2,94,000/- to her and that thereupon the 3rd respondent issued a letter of subrogation and an undertaking to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner came to know that the vehicle was intercepted while transporting spirit and that Crime No.340/2007 was registered against those who were transporting illicit liquor. It is stated that the Investigating Officer, the Circle Inspector of Police, Parassala, issued a notice to the 3rd respondent requiring her to produce the documents when she reported that the W.P.(C).627/10 2 vehicle was stolen and that she had received compensation from the Insurance Company. Petitioner also states that thereafter the 3rd respondent received a show cause notice from the 2nd respondent, initiating proceedings under Section 67 of the Abkari Act for confiscation of the vehicle. Petitioner thereupon made a request before the 2nd respondent claiming ownership over the vehicle. This writ petition is filed on the apprehension that the vehicle will be confiscated without notice to the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submit that the 2nd respondent by order dated 28.2.2009 ordered confiscation of the vehicle that after complying with all formalities, the vehicle was auctioned on 29.4.2009 and the same was released to the successful bidder on 16.5.2009. 4. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen that as a conclusion of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Abkari Act Ext.P7, the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated. In the absence of any appeal having been filed against the order of W.P.(C).627/10 3 confiscation, respondents cannot be faulted, if they have taken further action for the disposal of the vehicle. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, it is upto the petitioner to have sought its remedies against the order of confiscation, which has not been done. Therefore, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs