SUNIL Vs. ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner's vehicle got involved in an offence under the Abkari Act 1 of 1077. Accordingly proceedings were initiated under S.66 and 67 thereof. During the pendency of the said proceedings Joint Excise Commissioner, Trivandrum directed release of the vehicle on furnishing a security for an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner got the vehicle released in compliance with the requirement of furnishing security. This order came to the notice of the Excise Commissioner and noticing that the security furnished was for a far less amount than the value of the vehicle, action was initiated to review the order of the Joint Excise Commissioner. Ext. P3 is the notice issued by the Excise Commissioner. Pursuant to that notice the petitioner was directed by Ext. P4 to produce the Jeep before the Assistant Excise Commissioner. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner approached this court challenging Ext. P3 notice and P4 order. This Court as per order dated 26.2.1997 in C.M.P. No. 6523/1997 directed release of the vehicle without prejudice to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ext. P3 was issued exercising the power under S.67F of the Abkari Act That revisional power enjoined on the Commissioner is applicable only against the order passed under S.67B or S.67E. What is sought to be reviewed by Ext. P3 is Ext. P1 order. That is not an order either under S.67B or S.67E. Therefore, Ext. P3 notice is totally incompetent and he has no jurisdiction to issue such a notice. Admittedly he was exercising the power under S.67F. It will not cover an order like Ext. P1. Ext. P1 is only an order regarding interim custody of the vehicle pending proceedings under S.67B and C. In Ext. P1, it is made clear that it was being issued without prejudice to the proceedings pending with the authorised officer under S.67B and C of the Abkari Act. So that itself makes it clear that Ext. P1 is not an order made under S.67B or C. Therefore, Ext. P3 and consequential order Ext. P4 are quashed. The proceedings under S.67B and C against the petitioner shall be completed, if not yet completed, within three months from today. The release of the vehicle will be subject to such orders. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.