K SEKHAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of Declaration to declare Section 14 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937 as unconstitutional, null and void and unenforceable.

(2.) Heard both sides. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-9U-4788. The petitioner's vehicle was hired by M/s. Quality Wines, Mahe to transport IMFL goods from Pondicherry to Mahe and the goods were covered by valid permit issued by the Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka authorities. Due to some delay in transit, the petitioner's permit issued by the Tamil Nadu authorities had expired while on transit. On 04-06-1995, the lorry and the goods were seized on the alleged ground that the goods were transported without any valid permit and a case was registered in crime No. 285 of 1995 by the Kiliyanur Police Station, Tindivanam Taluk. The vehicle was later released on 19-06-1995 by an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 28-06-1995 under Section 14 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and called for an explanation as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated. As against the said show cause notice, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 14 (4) of the Act is unconstitutional as the authorities referred to in the section has been conferred with the power to confiscate the vehicle over riding the powers given to the Court; that Section 14 (4) of the Act is unreasonable and imposed a restriction on the court from exercising its power under Section 14 (2) of the Act and such restriction on the court is against law. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the provisions of Section 14 (4) is no nexus to the object sought to be achieved; that if a person is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that he has exercised due care in preventing the commission of such offence, his vehicle should not be confiscated but the power under Section 14 (4) stand in the way; that the powers vested with the authority for confiscating a vehicle is unreasonable and arbitrary as such the same is liable to be strucked down; that the impugned provision does not satisfy the test of reasonableness; that the authority is invested with the power to confiscate the vehicle whether or not prosecution is instituted. While so, there is every likelihood of exercising their power arbitrarily without even pursuing the matter through criminal court. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge about the alleged offence that the vehicle had transported goods without valid permit; that the alleged offence is beyond the control of the petitioner.