K RETHI DEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 17889 of 2016 is the holder of drug licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Rules 1945 for manufacture of ayurvedic drugs as per the list approved, evident from Ext.P1. Petitioner is also holding licence under Rule 83 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, evident from Ext.P2. Apart from the same petitioner is holding various licences under the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969, evident from Exts.P3 and P4. For the purpose of sale and transportation of ayurvedic medicines, petitioner had hire purchased a Bolero Pickup Van (Maxi Truck), evident from Ext.P6 registration certificate. Petitioner is also issued with Ext.P7 transport permit dated 4.5.2016, valid for the period from 4.5.2016 to 7.5.2016 for transportation of ayurvedic medicines to various ayurveda pharmacies situated in Thrissur, Pattambi, Kozhikode, Sulthan Bathery, Kalpettta and Wayanad.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in accordance with the licences issued, petitioner transported ayurvedic medicines to various destinations in the vehicles specified above. On 6.5.2016 when the petitioner's driver was taking the ayurvedic medicines covered by Exts.P1 to P4 licences to the respective consignees, 3rd respondent intercepted the vehicle and inspected the items on the Kalpetta - Mananthavady road, and even though found that the contents of the sealed bottles and printed cartons contained arishtam and aasawam, arrested the driver and took custody of the vehicle and its contents as per Ext.P9 mahazar. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, even on a reading of Ext.P9 mahazar, there is no offence constituted either under the Abkari Act or under the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969. It is also contended that 3rd respondent indulged in such action for statistical purpose during the election eve since the 2nd respondent's special squad was on a spree to book the in actions of the subordinate officers. That apart it is contended by the petitioner that going by Ext.P10 crime and occurrence report, even though it is alleged that, there is violation of rules 9 and 10 of the Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules and Sections 63 and 67(b) of the Abkari act, there is no offence constituted even according to the 3rd respondent. That apart it is contended that the 3rd respondent has no manner of power to seize the vehicle since the documents reveal that there is no offence constituted under the Abkari Act and Kerala Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules. It is in this background petitioner has filed this writ petition before this court seeking the reliefs and release of the goods and vehicle after quashing the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10.

(3.) Third respondent has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demand made by the petitioner and also contending that Ext.P9 mahazar and Ext.P10 crime and occurrence report are only prima facie documents to satisfy the requirements of seizure and only after securing chemical analysis report it can be conclusively said that whether the petitioner has committed any offence under the Abkari Act and the attendant Rules. Petitioner has filed a reply reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition and also contending that due to the action initiated by the 3rd respondent petitioner is put to severe difficulties and loss consequent on the non supply of medicines as per the order as well as the detention of the vehicle, since the vehicle is on hire purchase. Thus it is urged action of 3rd respondent pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 are in accordance with law.