SHANKARAN Vs. ADDL EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts. P1 and P3 orders passed by the respondents confiscating an autorickshaw belonging to the petitioner and its confirmation in appeal. Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-18 A-5213. According to him, the autorickshaw was being driven by his son who was earning income for the entire family. On 31/01/2005, the Circle Inspector of Excise, Perambra, and party intercepted the vehicle. Thereupon the vehicle was stopped, about 100 feet away and the passenger ran away from the site. The vehicle was inspected and a can containing arrack was seized. Accordingly CR No. 3/2005 was registered against the petitioner's son and the passenger.

(2.) Simultaneously the proceedings were initiated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (in short 'the Act') for confiscation of the vehicle. Petitioner was issued a notice in this behalf and he filed his reply to the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext. P1 dated 11/05/2006 ordering confiscation of the autorickshaw under Section 67B of the Act. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal and by Ext. P2, parties were called for a hearing. Finally Ext. P3 order was issued rejecting the appeal. Challenge is against Exts. P1 and P3 referred to above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. According to him an authorized officer and the appellate authority did not disclose to him the materials that were sought to be relied on against him and therefore proceedings is invalid. He also submits that the trial of the prosecution against the petitioners' son and the passenger is prosecuting in the Trial Court. It is stated that if the son is acquitted by the criminal Court, petitioner is also entitled to get the proceedings dropped and therefore the proceedings is premature.