R. KOTHANDAPANL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EGMORE, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Police, Madras-8, in his proceedings R.C.No. 1992 dated 8-6-1993.

(2.) The subject matter of this lis is the autorickshaw bearing Registration No. TSL 9003, 1989 model, which was purchased by one S. Kannanof Chiniadripet, Madras 600002, in the year 1990. The petitioner purchased the said autorickshaw from S. Kannan. The permit of the vehicle was transferred In the name of the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddalore Vallaiar District on 27-1-1993 in his proceedings No. R-1880/A5/1993 and in P.C. No. 5/9A/1993, Cuddalore. The petitioner was permitted to ply the vehicle within 15 Kms. radius from the central point of Chidambaram for a period of five years i.e. from 27-1-1993 to 26-1-1998. The vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mayiladuthurai, and the same is valid upto 6-9-1994.

(3.) On 17-2-1994, the 2nd respondent seized the vehicle pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent, which is impugned in the writ petition. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings against the petitioners vendors. Kannan under Sec. 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A show cause notice was issued to the said S. Kannan on 4-11 -1992 alleging that he had knowingly allowed the driver of the vehicle in question one Panrierselvam along with one selvi to use the vehicle for the purpose of transport of illicit arrack contravening the provisions of the Act. By that notice the said S. Kannan was asked to show cause as to why the said vehicle should not be confiscated under the Act. The said S. Kannan in his reply dated 19-11-1992 had stated that he had no knowledge about the offence and he had not allowed the vehicle to be used to transport illicit arrack by the driver of the vehicle. He submitted it had happened without his knowledge. The 1st respondent after the personal hearing on 9-12-1992, did not pass any orders till 8-6-1993 and kept quiet. The petitioner purchased the vehicle without knowing the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent against his vendor S. Kannan. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned order of confiscation of the vehicle in question by relying upon a judgment of this court reported in Natarajan Vs. State, (1992, Cri LJ 3221), and confiscated the vehicle on 17-2-1994 at Chidambaram through the 2nd respondent.