KARTHIKEYAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ Petitioner's vehicle was intercepted and seized on allegation of violation of the provisions of the Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 (Kerala). Those rules are issued under the Abkari Act. The statutory authority imposed a condition that the Petitioner deposits an amount of ' 2,50,000 for temporary release of that vehicle under the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996, hereinafter, 'Confiscation Rules'. The Petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ommen Mathew and Ors. v. Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum and Ors.,2010 2 KHC 617, filed the writ petition seeking a direction that the vehicle be ordered to be released without insisting on making cash deposit. When the matter came up for admission, learned Single Judge was of the view that in the light of the relevant statutory provisions which appears to be categorical, there is no room for its dilution by judicial intervention. The learned Judge felt that the view that he was taking is in conflict with that expressed in Dr. Ommen Mathew and Ors. v. Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum and Ors.,2010 2 KHC 617. Hence this reference to the Division Bench.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that relief may be granted following Dr. Ommen Mathew and Ors. v. Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum and Ors.,2010 2 KHC 617, while the learned Senior Government Pleader, making reference to the precedents which we will refer to during the course of discussions, argued that Dr. Ommen Mathew and Ors. v. Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum and Ors.,2010 2 KHC 617 is not correctly decided and that the same, at least to the extent apparently holding that the statutory authority is empowered to release the intercepted vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee or other security, is in contrast to the clear statutory provisions to the contrary.