IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13415 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHIBU PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, VADAKKEL HOUSE, KAMPAMMEDU KARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, IDUKKI – 685 602. 2. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13415/2011-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 20/05/2010 RELEASING THE VEHICLE TEMPORARILY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.2. DTD. 05/02/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.13415 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the registered owner of an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-37-7948 filed this Writ Petition challenging Exts.P2 and P3 orders passed respectively by respondents 1 and 2. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to drop all further proceedings in connection with the seizure of the said vehicle. The vehicle in question was involved in an abkari offence on 19.1.2010 at about 9.30 PM. The said vehicle was intercepted by the police and plastic bags containing 6.75 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was seized from the passenger of the vehicle viz., one Sri.Padinjattethil Joseph. Consequently, a crime was registered as crime No.16/2010 of Kambammettu police station against the said Sri.Sri.Padinjattethil Joseph and the petitioner. Thereafter, the vehicle was produced before the authorised officer. As per Ext.P1, the autorikshaw was temporarily released to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the first respondent under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. As per the same, it was ordered to W.P.(C) NO.13415/2011 2 confiscate the aforesaid vehicle to the Government. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, an appeal was preferred before the second respondent under Section 67E of the Abkari Act. Evidently, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of an order in the said appeal. Ext.P3 is the order passed in the appeal whereby it was ordered to release the vehicle to the petitioner who is the registered owner provided he is willing to remit the market value of the vehicle fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of Excise, to the Government Account, in compliance with Rule 4(1)(a) & (b) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'). It is challenging Exts.P2 and P3 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner admits that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. However, the contention is that he was absolutely unaware of the fact that the passenger who boarded the vehicle had in his possession Indian made foreign liquor. The petitioner and the said person were respectively arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 1 in crime No.16/2010 of Kambamettu police station. In the proceedings initiated for confiscation of the vehicle, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the authorities that he had taken all the measures in tune with the provisions under Section 67C of the Abkari Act. In fact, there is no contention in this writ petition which would satisfy that the petitioner had taken all steps to avert misuse of the W.P.(C) NO.13415/2011 3 vehicle in question. Obviously, the registered owner fails to satisfy the conditions in terms of Section 67C of the Abkari Act and it ultimately results in the order of confiscation. Evidently, as per Ext.P1, it is ordered that the vehicle in question be permanently released to the petitioner provided he expresses his willingness to remit the market value of the vehicle in compliance with the provisions under Rule 4(1) (a) and (b) of the Rules. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3. The petitioner has failed to show that the discretion vested with with the respondents were exercised in an arbitrary manner. In fact, a perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that they had exercised their discretion strictly in terms of the relevant provisions under the Act and it is the failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfy them that he had taken all the necessary steps in tune with Section 67C(2) of the Abkari Act that resulted in Ext.P2 and it is confirmed as per Ext.P3. I am fortified in my view by a decision of this Court in Shankaran v. Addl.Excise Commissioner reported in 2010(3) KLT 63. In the circumstances, the impugned orders call for no interference. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.13415/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.13415/2011 5