MAHESH PRASAD YADAV vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

O R D E R

Heard Mr. S.K. Gangele, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. The State of Madhya Pradesh is represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sigh, learned counsel.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a Xylo vehicle [Registration No.MP 17TA 1285] which is registered as a commercial vehicle. The vehicle was seized on 28.06.2015 while it was carrying about 250 litres of IMFL of two different brands. The proceedings were then drawn up under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter the Act).

3. Invoking the powers under Section 34A(3) of the Act, the Collector ordered for confiscation of the vehicle and also the liquor carried in the vehicle. The revisional challenge by the vehicle owner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa by the order dated 04.11.2020 [Annexure P/3. ]. Under the impugned order dated 4.12.2021, the High Court has upheld the confiscation order.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. S.K. Gangele would argue that since it was a commercial vehicle, the vehicle owner could not be penalized by the confiscation of his vehicle on account of the illegality which might have been done by the liquor licencee.

5. On the other hand, the State counsel would refer to the provisions of Section 34A(3) of the Act to argue that whenever liquor above 50 bulk litres are carried in a vehicle, the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated, under the provisions of the Act.

6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the confiscation order as also the order passed by the learned ASJ and the High Court upholding the confiscation. As can be noticed, the notice was issued by the District Collector to the vehicle owner in the attachment proceedings and his response in the matter was duly considered. The confiscation of a vehicle illegally carrying liquor above 50 bulk litres, is permitted by the Statute.

7. When the action taken is in conformity with the statute and due opportunity was afforded to the vehicle owner, looking at the concurrent orders affirming the confiscation, we see no scope to interfere with the impugned confiscation order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. When the above dismissal order was dictated, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the confiscated vehicle continues to be in possession of the registered owner, on account of interim order passed by the High Court and this Court. Therefore, although the vehicle, by virtue of the confiscation order, is State’s property, the petitioner, as the registered owner of the vehicle wants to buy back the vehicle. Accordingly he be permitted to file a representation for purchase of the confiscated vehicle by offering to pay reasonable cost.

9. Learned counsel for the State in response submits that such prayer can only be considered by the Collector (Excise).

10. On the above submission, notwithstanding the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the Collector (Excise) for purchase of the confiscated vehicle. If such application is filed, the same is ordered to be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR CM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR