ORDER

The present review petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2023 passed in MP No.7539/2023. The petition was filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by Collector, Dhar, whereby, the order of confiscation of vehicle was passed under section 47(A)(2) of the MP Exice Act. The order passed by the Collector of confiscation of the vehicle was quashed relying on the judgment passed in the cases of Bhaskar @ Balkishan Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.28288/2023, Sheih Kalim vs. State of MP passed in M.Cr.C No.1296/2015, Suresh vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.19528/2022, Aman Vs. State of MP and ors passed in WP No.12666/2023 and Akash Raikwar Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.18178/2023. In those judgments, the provisions of section 47(A)(2) of Excise Act was considered and it was held that the word "offence has been committed" has been interpreted to mean that the trial Court has recorded a finding that the offence has been proved and then the order of confiscation can be passed by the Collector. In that case, admittedly, the trial was not concluded and the Collector passed the order of confiscation therefore, the petition was allowed and the order of confiscation was quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment relied by this Court in the case of Suresh vs. State of MP passed in WP No.19528/2022 was stayed in writ appeal no.1074/2023 by the Division Bench by order dated 07.08.2023. He submits that since the order passed in the case of Suresh which has been referred by this Court has been stayed, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration.

The order passed by the Division Bench is an interim order and admittedly writ appeal is pending. It is settled law that the interim orders do not decide the question of law and they are not the precedent. Only on the basis of interim order passed by the Division Bench, the order impugned cannot be reviewed. There is no error apparent on the face of record. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting any interference in exercise of review power. It is well settled that cases are heard and decided only once. To make departure from this statutory rule, the review application must strictly fall within the established parameters. In light of settled principles of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, that there is no merit and substance in the review petition as in a review, the Court has a very limited power circumscribed by definitive limits. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 01-05-2024 09:53:58