SUJIT CHANDRAN P.H. Vs. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the registered owner of a Maruti Wagon R Car. On 4.9.2012, the car was seized by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that it had transported 20 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('IMFL' for short), totalling 15 litres. The mahazar prepared in connection with the seizure is Ext.P2. The vehicle has been under the custody of the respondents ever since. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is lying in the open, exposed to sun and rain, getting damaged with every passing day. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 request to the 1st respondent seeking release of the vehicle. He complains that no orders are passed on Ext.P3 till date.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 67B of the Abkari Act which confers power on the 1st respondent to deal with such applications. Therefore, it is contended that the delay in passing orders on Ext.P3 is without any justification.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival contentions, I am of opinion that the question as to whether the vehicle can be released to the petitioner, is a matter that the 1st respondent would have to consider. Since Ext.P3 request is pending before the said authority, it is necessary that the same is considered and appropriate orders passed thereon, without further delay. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle is getting damaged because it is not properly taken care of, also requires to be addressed. The 1st respondent shall consider whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on his furnishing sufficient security and satisfying other necessary terms for such release. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks of the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.