Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2017
MCRC-10463-2016
(DEEPAK RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
24-04-2017
Shri B.S.Gaur, counsel for the applicant.
Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/state.
The Collector and District Excise Officer Shivpuri and SDO (P) Karera District Shivpuri have filed their reply. The Collector as well as District Excise Officer Shivpuri have stated that as the case was registered for initiating confiscation proceedings on 27.6.2016 and accordingly, an information was sent to the CJM, Shivpuri with regard to the initiation of the confiscation proceedings.
Although the case was registered on 27.6.2016 for initiating the confiscation proceedings but admittedly, a notice to show cause as to why, the vehicle be not confiscated was issued on 28.2.2017 and that too, after repeated opportunities were given by this court to the State to explain whether other proceedings have been initiated or not. In the entire reply, no explanation has been given as to why, no proceedings were taken up from 27.6.2016 till 28.2.2017. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the reply filed by the authorities is not satisfactory.
A very evasive reply has been given by Collector District Shivpuri which reads as under :
â3- ;g fd] izdj.k ds nk;jk iath esa ntZ gksus ds fnukad 27-06-2016 ls izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh 'kq: gks xbZ] dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku okgu ekfyd dks fnukad 28-02-2017 dks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;kA lwpuk i= fnukad 01-03-2017 dks izkIr gksus ij okgu ekfyd@vkosnd }kjk izrhr gqvk fd mlds okgu dks jktlkr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 01-03-2017 ls izkjaHk dh xbZ gS] tcfd okgu ds jktlkr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh nk;jk iath esa izdj.k ntZ dj] izKkiuk Hkstus ds lkFk gh fnukad 27-06-2016 dks izkjaHk gks xbZ FkhA â Similar evasive reply has been given by District Excise Officer Shivpuri which reads as under :
â9- ;g dh izdj.k ds nk;jk iath esa ntZ gksus ds fnukad 27-06-2016 ls izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh 'kq: gks xbZ] dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku okgu ekfyd dks fnukad 28-02-2017 dks lwpuk i= tkjh fd;k x;k A lwpuk i= fnukad 01-03-2017 dks izkIr gksus ij okgu ekfyd@ vkosnd }kjk izrhr gqvk fd mlds okgu dks jktlkr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 01-03-2017 ls izkjaHk dh xbZ gS] tcfd okgu ds jktlkr fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh nk;jk iath esa izdj.k ntZ dj]izKkiuk Hkstus ds lkFk gh fnukad 27-06-2016 dks izkjaHk gks xbZ FkhAâ The contention of the authorities appear to be that only after receipt of notice on 1.3.2017, owner of the vehicle gathered an impression that the proceedings have been initiated from 28.2.2017 but in fact by registering a case, the proceedings were already initiated for confiscation of the vehicle. The reply filed by the authorities is just contrary to the order sheets of this court.
On 23.11.2016, as the reply was not filed inspite of repeated opportunities, therefore, it was directed that the SHO Police Station Dinara distinct Shivpuri shall remain present. On 9.1.2017, specific statement was made by the counsel for the applicant that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated and therefore, State counsel was granted two weeks' time to file certified copy of the confiscation proceedings.
On 10.2.2017, a short adjournment was sought by the state counsel on the ground that by mistake, the order dated 9.1.2017 could not be communicated to the Collector Shivpuri and on 27.2.2017 on the basis of the letter dated 17.2.2017 issued by Collector Shivpuri to Superintendent of Police Shivpuri, a misleading statement was made that the proceedings for confiscation are under progress. This Court categorically held that the authorities were directed to file certified copies of the confiscation proceedings and therefore, this statement made by state counsel is not proper and therefore, the authorities were directed to file certified copies of the confiscation proceedings. On 7.3.2017 again, an adjournment was sought by the State counsel to file certified copies of the confiscation proceedings. On 16.3.2017, reply was filed and the counsel for the applicant sought adjournment to go through the reply.
Accordingly, the case was taken up on 3.4.2017. A detailed order was passed on the said date mentioning in detail that except informing the concerning Magistrate on 27.6.2016, no other proceedings were taken up by the authorities. By filing evasive reply, an attempt has been made by the authorities to mislead this court by making attempt to put blame on the applicant by mentioning that after receipt of show cause notice on 1.3.2017, the applicant has misinterpreted the beginning of the confiscation proceedings. The question is not whether the confiscation proceedings could be said to have started after communication of the same to the CJM or it would start from the date when the show cause notice was issued but it is apparent from the document that from 27.6.2016 till 28.2.2017 nothing was done by the authorities inspite of the fact that repeated opportunities were being given by this Court to submit with regard to the stage of the confiscation proceedings. The reply of the authorities is beautifully silent on this ground that why no action was taken from 27.6.2016 to 28.2.2017 and why the Collector Shivpuri even did not care to issue show cause notice to the applicant on 17.2.2017. However, he informed Superintendent of Police Shivpuri with regard to the pendency of confiscation proceedings.
As this Court is not satisfied with the reply, Collector, Shivpuri as well as District Excise Officer Shivpuri are directed to explain as to why nothing was done in the matter from 27.6.2016 to 28.2.2017 as well as why the Collector District Shivpuri did not care to look into the matter inspite of the fact that specific reply was being sought by this Court on different dates.
The authorities are also directed to explain as to why, the matter was taken up so casually when their in-action was being constantly challenged by the applicant. The Collector District Shivpuri and District Excise Officer Shivpuri are directed to file specific reply why no actual action was taken from 27.6.2016 till 28.2.2017. Let specific reply be filed within 15 days.
As prayed, list in the week commencing 15th May, 2017.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Rks