IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18217 of 2009(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SOMAN A.R, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MES QUARTERS NO.55/6, NAVAL BASE, KATARIBAGH, KOZHI 682 004. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, MATTANCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE MACHANICAL ENGINEER, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE ADDL.EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009 ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 18223/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).Nos.18217/2009-V, 18223/2009-W, 18224/2009-W & 18225/2009-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners in these matters have filed separate applications on different causes of action and on different sets of facts before the competent statutory authority for temporary release of vehicles allegedly involved in abkari offences. Those applications need to be considered most expeditiously since awaiting conclusion of confiscation proceedings, they cannot be deferred pending consideration of the confiscation proceedings. Such applications for temporary release pending confiscation proceedings are governed by Rule 4(2)(a) of the Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996, (Kerala), the validity of which was considered by this Court in Aji Kumar v. Asst. WP(C)18217/09 & con.cases -: 2 :- Excise Commissioner, 1999 (1) KLT 132 and later, by the Division Bench in Prasad v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2002 (2) KLT 790. The rule was upheld. The purpose of that rule was also specifically adverted to and stated in Aji Kumar (supra). Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a hirer covered by a hire purchase agreement, notwithstanding the finding that the rule mandates deposit of money in the treasury, this Court took a lenient view authorizing the furnishing of bank guarantee in lieu of deposit. That is an exception, not a rule. It also shows that in exceptional circumstances, it may be feasible to issue such orders when it becomes absolutely necessary as may be found in jurisdictions which are totally discretionary. Yet, such orders could not be issued violating the law. Under the aforesaid circumstances, these writ petitions are ordered directing that the competent statutory respondent will take up the respective WP(C)18217/09 & con.cases -: 3 :- applications of the petitioners and dispose them off, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/070709