(1.) OFTEN vehicles, vessels or other conveyances are seized for the carriage of commodities in contravention of the provisions of various enactments. These conveyances are liable to be confiscated if in the enquiry that follows the offence is proved. Some enactments provide for an option to the owner to pay a fine of not less than one half of the value of the conveyance in lieu of its confiscation. The question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities can take their own time to conduct the enquiry resulting in the virtual destruction of the conveyance by the vagaries of weather or otherwise.
(2.) IN these cases two lorries belonging to the petitioners were seized as early as 13-3-1982 for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts (Procurement and Distribution) Act, 1982. The lorries are kept at the premises of the Noyyattinkara police Station. The petitioners challenged the seizure of the vehicles in original petitions filed before this Court. Along with the original petitions the petitioners moved civil miscellaneous petitions for the release of the vehicles. This Court by order dated 14-7-1982 directed the release of the vehicles on the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee for the value of the vehicles and rejected the request of the petitioners for release of the same on furnishing immovable property security. This Court also gave a direction that the enquiry in the matter should be completed within a month. The petitioners could not get the vehicles released as according to them they are not in a position to furnish bank guarantee. It seems the petitioner challenged the order dated 14-7-1982 before the Supreme Court, but did not succeed. Now these petitions are filed for modification of the order dated 14-7-1982 and for the release of the vehicles without bank guarantee. It is stated in the affidavits filed along with the petitions that though the vehicles were seized as early as 13-3-1982, not only no enquiry has been conducted, the authorities have not even issued a notice to the parties for the enquiry. It is also averred that the vehicles left in the open will soon be reduced to scrap iron. The petitioners have also pointed out that though two months were over after the direction to complete the enquiry within a month, the 2nd counter-petitioner Revenue Divisional Officer has not complied with the direction.
(3.) THE 2nd counter-petitioner Revenue Divisional Officer has filed a counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated : The R. D. O. came to know of the direction issued by this Court on 14-7-1982 only on 22-9-1982 when he received a teleprinter message from the Liaison Officer. The delay in finalising the confiscation proceedings was primarily due to the fact that the question whether the raw cashewnuts carried in the vehicles were indigenous nuts or imported nuts is pending decision before this Court in two other original petitions. Six weeks' time may be given for passing final orders in the confiscation proceedings. The default in not complying with the Court's order be excused.