IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35014 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.FRANCINA CLARANCE REBELLO, W/O.CLARANCE REBELLO, HOUSE NO.12/883, KELLOTHMUKH, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JESTIN SRI.T.G.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.35014 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent Additional Commissioner of Excise to consider an appeal that the petitioner may prefer against Ext.P2 order of confiscation of a vehicle belonging to her. That vehicle was involved in an abkari offence registered some time in early 2007. A reading of Ext.P2 will show that the proceedings were dragged on for quite some time and the petitioner had sought for an opportunity before the Assistant Excise Commissioner to prove her innocence. This was after she had filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle. When the Assistant Excise Commissioner took the stand that she has to file her reasonable objections to the proposed confiscation, she filed her objections in 2008. That led to the impugned order. The Assistant Excise Commissioner considered the objections and held that there WPC.35014/09 2 was no ground to hold that the petitioner was wholly innocent and that she had to take due care and caution in terms of law to be saved from the peril of confiscation of the vehicle of which she is the registered owner. 2.The Assistant Excise Commissioner found that the vehicle which was under the confiscation proceedings was owned by the petitioner as registered owner but was being put to use through her husband who is a tour operator and the vehicle, in the course of such transaction, was found involved in violation of the abkari laws. It was under such circumstances Ext.P2 order was issued overruling her contention and confiscating the vehicle. The last paragraph of Ext.P2 categorically says for her information that the said order is appealable under Section 67E of the Abkari Act and that the period fixed for filing appeal is 30 days. Notwithstanding that Ext.P2 order was issued on 7.8.2008, the petitioner has not filed any appeal till now and today, on 4.12.2009, she wants a direction to the appellate WPC.35014/09 3 authority to consider an appeal that she may file against Ext.P2. Adverting to the terms of the abkari laws, there is no power for the appellate authority to condone the delay. No such power is expressly provided. The period of limitation is fixed. Therefore, I do not find any ground to accede to the request of the petitioner for a direction to consider an appeal, which is yet to be filed. Notwithstanding that, I have assumed myself on facts that there is no failure of justice and the chance of the petitioner obtaining a reversal of Ext.P2 order on merits is extremely minimal. On facts, Ext.P2 order necessarily stands in the eye of law. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/12.