The Assistant Excise Commissioner vs K.V.Vijayan on 9 January, 2007

[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Kerala High Court

The Assistant Excise Commissioner vs K.V.Vijayan on 9 January, 2007

Bench: M.Ramachandran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1039 of 2004()


1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

                        Vs



1. K.V.VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

 Dated :09/01/2007

 O R D E R
                     (V.K.BALI, C.J. & M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)

         -------------------------------------------------------------

                          W.A.No.1039 of  2004

                                        &

                   C.M.Application No.999 of 2004

         --------------------------------------------------------------

                Dated this the 9th day of January, 2007


                                 JUDGMENT

Ramachandran, J:

Delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

By judgment dated 29-01-2004 in W.P.(C).No.3345 of 2004, the learned single Judge had directed that the value of the vehicle, confiscated by the Government in respect of an Abkari offence, was to be fixed within a period of one week and on furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the vehicle and on an undertaking, the vehicle was to be released to the petitioner. Adjudication proceedings were to be completed within three months. The alternate direction was that if the "vehicle is surrendered and the same on sale fetches lesser price than the value covered by the Bank Guarantee, the Government will recover the differential amount from the concerned adjudicating officer or any other officer responsible".

2. Of course the order should have been more happily worded for precision and for being dutifully complied with. But by passage of time and since no efforts were made to get the [WA No.1039 of 2004] -2- appeal posted for admission, the issue might have become infructuous.

3. We do not find any necessity to intervene, especially since further developments after the judgment have not been supplied. The writ appeal is dismissed. The adjudicating officer or any other officer is not to be proceeded against on the basis of the directions in the judgment.

Sd/-

V.K.BALI (CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/-

M.RAMACHANDRAN (JUDGE) mks/

- True Copy -

P.S.to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court