Petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and seeks for a declaration that the demand of interest from 29.7.2003 for Rs.1,75,000/- made in Exts.P2, P3 and P4 is illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts involved in the above writ petition would disclose that the petitioner’s vehicle which was involved in an abkari offence was seized and confiscation proceedings were taken by the authorized officer. Ext.P1 is the order which has become final. As per Ext.P1, the vehicle which was used for transportation of illegal toddy was confiscated. Even before the order was passed, petitioner had filed O.P.No.10337/99 for interim custody of the vehicle which was allowed on condition that the petitioner furnishes security equal to the market value of the vehicle. It was valued at Rs.1,75,000/-. Petitioner produced his title deed as security and got the vehicle released. Subsequent to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner did not surrender the vehicle and later he was faced with Exts.P2 and P3 demand notice under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and attachment of the property belonging to him.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there is no necessity to attach his property as he is willing to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Authority was bound to pass an order permitting him to pay the amount in lieu of confiscation in terms of Rule 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules’). Petitioner relies upon judgment of this Court in W.P(. C)No.27916/09 which, inter alia, states the confiscation authorities should give an option to the registered owner of the vehicle to avail the benefit provided under Rule 4(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, such a benefit was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner further contends that there is no obligation to pay interest from 29.7.2003.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, inter alia, stating that Ext.P1 order has been passed after considering all relevant records and completing all legal formalities. Pursuant to Ext.P1, notice was issued to the petitioner by registered post directing him to surrender the vehicle. But the petitioner neither submitted any reply nor surrendered the vehicle. Again notice was issued to the petitioner intimating to surrender the vehicle. But the notice was returned as unclaimed. Again notice was issued to the petitioner in person. But since there is no response on the part of the petitioner, Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the above factual situation, the short question to be considered is whether petitioner is entitled to challenge Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and whether the directions as sought for can be granted.
6. In regard to the claim made under 4(1)(a)(b) of the Rules, the competent authority in a revision filed by the petitioner has passed an order dated 5.11.2011 directing confiscation of the vehicle, which has become final. There is no challenge to Ext.P1. In such circumstances, the petitioner was under an obligation to return the vehicle which he had taken after furnishing security. It is on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the direction issued at Ext.P1, steps have been taken by the department to recover the security amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the said amount of Rs.1,75,000/- but he has no obligation to pay any interest on the said amount. The liability to pay the security amount arises when there is default on the part of the petitioner in not producing the vehicle before the competent authority. Apparently, the revisional order was passed by the Excise Commissioner on 5.11.2011. Admittedly, the vehicle was not produced after the order was passed in terms of Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner will have the liability to pay the security amount as well as interest on the amount due atleast from the date from which Ext.P1 was passed. Petitioner cannot contend that he is not liable to pay interest on the security amount after having failed to surrender the vehicle as per the directions issued in Ext.P1. In such circumstances, it was open for the Excise Department to demand security amount with interest which they have done and it is in the said circumstances that Exts.P2, P3 and P4 has been issued.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
Challenge to Exts.P2, P3 and P4 is negatived. However, the demand for interest at the rate of 18% from 29.7.2003 is limited from the date of Ext.P1 order, dated 5.11.2011. Petitioner shall pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until such time, Exts.P2, P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance.
jes A.M.SHAFFIQUE, Judge