SHAIK KHADER BASHA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involve a common question of law. Hence, they are disposed of by this common judgment. In these two writ petitions, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Warangal Range, Warangal, are questioned. For the purpose of convenience, we are referring the facts of Writ Petition No. 16955 of 1994.

(2.) The brief facts are that on 17-7-1994, the Excise Sub-Inspector, Range Tirumalaipalem of Khammam District intercepted a lorry bearing No. AEK 8053 and seized 100 Bulk litres of I.D. Liquor in ten plastic cans. The case property was seized and four persons including the driver were arrested under the cover of panchanama and they were sent to judicial remand. C.R. No. 72/1993-94 was registered. The Driving Licence and 'C' book of the vehicle were also seized. As per the 'C' book, the vehicle stands in the name of Sri Shaik Khader Basha i.e., the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16955 of 1994. The statements of the arrested persons were also recorded.

(3.) A notice was issued to the petitioner informing that the lorry in question was seized by the Excise Sub-Inspector and to give explanation as to why the lorry should not be confiscated for having indulged in the transportation of I.D. Liquor. On 26-7-1994, the Advocate of the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and submitted a petition in which it is stated that the petitioner is the cwner of the lorry. He engaged the lorry for transportation of coal from Ramakrishnapuram of Adilabad District to Jayantipuram, Madras Cement Factory-via-Tirumalaipalem of Khammam District as per the permission accorded by the Divisional Engineer, C.S.P-I R.K.P., the Singareni Collieries Limited, vide transport permit No. 3134/dt. 16-7-1994. The coal was to be unloaded at Jayantipuram, Madras Cement Factory. The R.C. Book and other documents show that the royalty has been remitted by the concerned Cement factory to the authorities of the Singareni Collieries Limited and that the said documents were also seized by the Excise Sub-Inspector. From the said documents it is clear that the lorry was engaged for the purpose of transport of coal. The petitioner did not hire the lorry for the purpose of transportation of alleged I.D. Liquor and that he has never authorised his driver to allow anybody for boarding the lorry with I.D. Liquor. The petitioner denied that the lorry was involved in the transportation of I.D. Liquor with his knowledge. The lorry is kept in the open space from the date of seizure and it is being spoiled and it is likely to cause extensive damage and the same will put him to heavy loss and therefore, the lorry may be released.