Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammed Ikabal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 January, 2023
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 5748 of 2022
Mohammed Ikabal S/o Mohammed Mastan, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o A.T.P.O. Sirocha, Tahsil Sirocha, District Gadhchiroli (M.H.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Bijapur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Excise Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. District Excise Officer, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 05.01.2023
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the District Excise Officer as also by the Excise Commissioner in a confiscation proceeding initiated against the petitioner's vehicle i.e. Supro Mini Truck bearing registration No. M.H.33/T/1930.
2. The said vehicle was found to be involved in transportation of illegal liquor. Subsequently, a case was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1), 34(2), 36 and 59(A) of the CG Excise Act. Simultaneously, the confiscation proceeding was also initiated.
3. The District Excise Officer vide order dated 27.06.2022 ordered for confiscation of the said property, against which the petitioner 2 preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner. The Commissioner has also vide its order dated 11.11.2022 rejected the appeal affirming the order passed by the District Excise Officer.
4. This Court, at the outset, is of the opinion that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of preferring a revision petition before the Court of Sessions against the order passed by the appellate authority and therefore the writ petition to that extent would not be maintainable as there is an alternative statutory remedy is available.
5. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the proviso to Section 47C of the CG Excise Act bars the Court of Sessions from staying the order of confiscation or the order of the appellate authority during the pendency of the revision petition. Therefore, counsel for petitioner submits that he has approached this Court so as to get some interim protection or else if the respondents go for auction of the said confiscated property, the petitioner would find it difficult at a later stage to get the vehicle back in the event the revision petition is allowed before the Court of Sessions.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that if at all if the petitioner prefers a revision petition, in all probability the revision petition itself would be decided even before finalization of the auction proceeding, if any. He submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to surpass the statutory remedy of revision that is otherwise prescribed.
7. Be that as it may, considering the provisions of Section 47C of the CG Excise Act which provides for a statutory remedy of preferring a revision against the order of confiscation and the rejection of appeal, this Court directs the petitioner to prefer a revision before the 3 appropriate Court having jurisdiction assailing the order of confiscation and the rejection of appeal.
8. However, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Revisional Court does not have the power to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order, it is ordered that if the petitioner prefers a revision within a period of 15 days from today, the respondents would not finalize the auction proceeding if at all if any initiated till the revision petition is decided by the concerned Court of Sessions.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Subject to the petitioner furnishing photocopy of the impugned order, the certified copy of the same would be returned to him.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai