Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Vinoy P.A vs The Deputy Commissioner (Excise) on 3 November, 2009

Author: K.Surendra Mohan

Bench: K.Surendra Mohan

       

  

  

 
 
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/10TH KARTHIKA 1934

                WP(C).No. 23900 of 2012 (J)
                ---------------------------

PETITIONER:
-----------

    VINOY P.A.,
    S/O. ABRAHAM, POOVATHUMPARAMBIL, KOLUVALLY,
    CHUNDA.P.O., THALASSERY.

    BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
           SMT.P.K.PRIYA
           SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
           SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

RESPONDENTS:
------------

1.  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE)
    EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION
    KANNUR PIN-670 001.

2.  THE EXCISE RANGE OFFICER,
    PAYYANNUR EXCISE RANGE,
    P.O. PAYYANNUR, PIN - 670 307.

    R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD

  THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
  ON  01-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
  FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 23900 of 2012 (J)

                            A P P E N D I X

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS


EXT.P1     TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.

EXT.P2     TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 3-11-2009 ENTERED INTO
           BETWEEN SHANO MATHEW AND THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P3     TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
           BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8-6-2012.

EXT.P4     THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14389/12 DATED
           21-6-2012.

EXT.P5     THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE I.A. 9455/2012 IN WPC
           14389/12 DATED 13-7-2012.

EXT.P6     THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4-8-2012.




                            /TRUE COPY/

                                                    P.A TO JUDGE



                    K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
           -----------------------------------------------------
                   W.P(c) No.23900 of 2012-J
           ----------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 1st November, 2012

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the condition that is stipulated by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6 communication. As per Ext.P6, the petitioner has been directed to remit an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) in the Treasury Savings Account in the District Treasury, Kannur, within 15 days and to produce the proof of registration and a Bond on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/- as condition for release of a vehicle owned by him.

2. The petitioner had agreed to purchase a Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No.KL-11Z-8672 on 3.11.2009. Pursuant to the agreement, he was put in possession of the vehicle. On 31.05.2012 at 9 a.m, the vehicle was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that 9 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was seized from the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the liquor was abandoned by the persons who were passengers in the vehicle. A crime has been W.P(c) No.23900 of 2012-J 2 registered by the Payyannur Excise Range as Crime No.37 of 2012 under Section 13 of the Abkari Act read with Section 63 thereof. The vehicle is at present in the custody of the Excise authorities. When the petitioner sought for the release of the vehicle, Ext.P6 communication has been issued stipulating the conditions mentioned above. Advocate T.K.Vipindas, who appears for the petitioner, submits that the registration of the vehicle has been subsequently transferred to the name of the petitioner. Therefore, he is presently the registered owner of the vehicle and is not therefore prejudiced by the condition regarding production of proof of registration. With respect to the amount that is directed to be deposited, the petitioner seeks permission to furnish bank guarantee for the said amount.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending that vehicle has been seized for the reason that it was involved in the commission of an offence under the Abkari Act. The vehicle was entrusted to the Excise Range Office, Payyannur for safe custody. The respondents also contend that the valuation of the vehicle that has been fixed is correct and therefore, there are no other grounds to interfere with Ext.P6.

W.P(c) No.23900 of 2012-J 3

4. Having considered the rival contentions advanced before me, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be permitted to furnish bank guarantee for the market value of the vehicle as seen determined in Ext.P6.

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL- 11Z-8672 to the petitioner on his furnishing a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only), and on production of proof of registration of the vehicle as well as the bond that has been required to be furnished.

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/