Saigirish vs Psychotropic Substance And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18115 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 17026 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SAIGIRISH,
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O. KRISHNAN, VARIKKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
          SANGARAMANGALAM P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

          BY ADV SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE AND CONVEYANCE
          DISPOSAL COMMITTEE
          UNDER THE NDPS ACT, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY
          EXCISE COMMISSIONER AS THE CHAIRMAN, THODUPUZHA,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 581

    2     EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
          NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD, ADIMALY,
          IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 561



          BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRASANTH.



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
    03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17026 OF 2021

                                     2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2021

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for reliefs as follows:

1. Call for the entire records relating to Ext.P1 to P5 from the respondents.

2. Quash Ext.P5 order of the 1 st respondent by a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction;

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to grant temporary custody of the car bearing Reg.No.KL-52-J-9456 which involved in NDPS Crime No.7/2021 of Adimaly Narcotic Enforcement Squad as expeditiously as possible within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

4. Such other relief that this Honourable court may deem fit to render justice to the Petitioner;

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the 1 st

respondent, Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances and

Conveyance Disposal Committee, Idukki has passed an order,

the certified copy of which is produced alongwith as Ext.P5

rejecting his claim for getting the vehicle in custody. According WP(C).No.17026 OF 2021

to him Maruti Swift VXI car bearing Registration No.KL-52-J-9456

belongs to him and it was given to a friend of him on rent. While

his friend was using the car for travelling to Kodaikanal, and

while returning back, the vehicle was seized on the allegation

that a person travelling in the vehicle was possessed of Narcotic

as well as Psychotropic Substances. Immediately on seizure, the

vehicle was handed over to the 1 st respondent and the

impugned order was passed.

3. The learned counsel has relied on Smart Logistics

(M/s.) Kozhikode v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (5)

KHC 139] to contend that the impugned order suffers for not

granting an opportunity of hearing to him before passing the

order. According to the petitioner in Smart Logistics supra

this Court has directed to hear the registered owner prior to

initiating the proceedings for disposal of the vehicle. According

to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not granted with an

opportunity of being heard by the Committee and he is

prejudiced thereby.

4. Petitioner is not an accused in the case but is only the

Registered Owner of the vehicle. According to him the vehicle

was given to his friend for travel purpose and he was not aware

of the use by him of the vehicle for any purpose other than WP(C).No.17026 OF 2021

travelling. According to him he had preferred an application

before the 1st respondent seeking for getting the vehicle in

interim custody stating that he is the registered owner. But the

application was dismissed by the 1 st respondent by Exhibit P5

order without granting him an opportunity of being heard. This

Court also finds from paragraph 2 of the impugned order that an

application was made by the petitioner before the Narcotic Drugs

Psychotropic Substances and Conveyance Disposal Committee

seeking for release of the same in his custody and the application

was dismissed by the Committee and his prayer was declined. It

is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not granted with an

opportunity of personal hearing by the Committee. The decision

relied on directs to provide an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioner prior to initiating proceedings for disposal.

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition stands allowed.

The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner to show

cause why his vehicle shall not be disposed of and he shall be

heard on his explanations. The 1 st respondent is directed to

complete the above process within a period not later than two

months.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE MJL WP(C).No.17026 OF 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.KL-52-J-9456

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME AND OCCURRENCE REPORT IN NDPS CRIME NO.7/2021 OF ADIMALY NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NDPS CRIME NO.7/2021 OF ADIMALY NARCOTIC ENFORCEMENT SQUAD

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2021

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2021

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P A TO JUDGE