Sajitha Sasi vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20261 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20261 Ker
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sajitha Sasi vs The State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
    THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 20485 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SAJITHA SASI,
          AGED 45 YEARS,
          W/O. SAJI P.K, PERUVELIL HOUSE,
          NEENDOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 601

          BY ADV SEENA K.


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
    2     THE DRUG DISPOSAL COMMITTEE,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
          EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O,
          KOTTAYAM 686 002
    3     THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,
          EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, VAIKOM 686 141


          SR PP SMT.T.V.NEEMA



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

                                        2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2021

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India by the writ petitioner seeking for

the following reliefs;

"(i) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of this Honourable Court calling for records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to release the vehicle seized in NDPS Cr.27/2020 to the petitioner;

(iii) Pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. According to the petitioner, she is the

registered owner of a Race scooter bearing

Registration No.KL-05-AV-6808 and the same was W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

purchased by her with financial assistance from

IndusInd Bank Ltd. True copy of the Registration

Certificate is produced alongwith as Et.P1.

3. According to her, she is a worker under the

NREG scheme and her son was sent with the scooter

to a nearby market to purchase provisions. On his way

back from the market, he was taken by the Excise

Party into custody for the reason that 10 grams of

dried cannabis plant parts were found in his

possession. Crime No.27/2020 was registered against

him under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the

'NDPS Act'), after seizure of the contraband, true copy

of the seizure mahazar in the crime is produced

alongwith as Ext.P2. Petitioner's son was released on

bail but, on 25.10.2020, he died in a road traffic

accident. True copy of his death certificate dated

20.11.2020 is also produced as Exhibit.P3. The W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

petitioner has submitted a representation before the

2nd respondent, true copy of which is produced

alongwith as Ext.P4. When the authority was about to

proceed with the disposal of the vehicle, without

considering Ext.P4 representation, the petitioner has

approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C No.2435/2021

seeking for a direction to the 2 nd respondent to

consider Ext.P4 representation after granting her an

opportunity of being heard. This Court vide order

dated 11.05.2021 directed the 2nd respondent to

consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders within

two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the

order, true copy of which is produced alongwith as

Ext.P5.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she

had been served with an order No.K3-2252/2020 by

the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2021, rejecting her claim

for release of the vehicle in her favour, true copy of W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

which is produced alongwith as Ext.P6. According to

the learned counsel, Ext.P6 is not sustainable in law

for being passed without hearing the petitioner.

According to her, none of the contentions raised by the

petitioner in Ext.P4 was considered by the 2 nd

respondent, while passing Ext.P6.

5. This Court has noticed from Ext.P6 that the

contentions taken by the petitioner vide application

dated 25.09.2020 filed as Ext.P4 were also considered

elaborately by the 2nd respondent while passing it. It

was found from Ext.P6 that the petitioner failed to

establish any of the contentions raised in Ext.P4

application.

6. This Court has also gone through Ext.P4

application, to see the contentions raised, which are

extracted hereunder;

"I am a worker under the NREG scheme. I am the supervisor of NREGS of Ward No.3 of W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

Neendoor Panchayath. The Scooter was purchased with the financial assistance of IndusInd Bank Ltd for my daily use to go to my work.

On 10/09/2020 I had no work. I sent my son to purchase provision with my scooter and he was taken into custody by the Excise Party on the way. It is alleged that 10 grams of dried cannabis plant parts were found in his possession. Crime No.27/2020 was registered against U/S 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.

My son is no more. He died in a road traffic accident on 25/10/2020. The liability on the scooter under the Hire Purchase agreement is still subsisting. And I am obliged to pay its future installments.

My son had no antecedents and I had no knowledge that he was abusing drugs. The contraband seized from my son was not belonged to me and I had not authorized him to carry any contraband in it. I had also taken all reasonable precaution against use of my vehicle for any illegal purposes. Under those circumstances the vehicle is not liable for confiscation."

7. It is true that in Ext.P4, the petitioner had

taken the contention that the vehicle was used by her

son without her knowledge and authorization and that W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

she had taken all reasonable precaution against use of

the vehicle for any illegal purposes. Mere say on the

above matters are insufficient to convince the

authority on the contentions. The petitioner must

establish the contentions by cogent evidence and on

being convinced of that alone, the authority will be

able to avoid disposal of the vehicle. As per Section

52(A) of the Act, a vehicle when found by the

Committee as used for transportation of illicit drugs, it

has every authority to dispose it of. By virtue of the

dictum laid down by a Bench of this Court in Smart

Logistics, Kozhikode Vs. State of Kerala and

Others.[2020 (5) KHC 139], that the parties are

entitled for an opportunity of being heard. Therefore,

if the registered owner failed to convince the authority

of any cogent reasons, the Committee is empowered to

proceed with disposal of the vehicle. This Court finds

no illegality in the order. No purpose would also be W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

served by issuing directions of similar nature again

and again.

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

JJ W.P.(c) No.20485 of 2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF KL-05-AV 6808 SCOOTER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHSER IN NDPC CR NO 27/2020 OF VAIKOM EXCHANGE RANGE EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S SON DATED 20-11-2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CRL MC 2435 OF 2021 DATED 11-05-2021 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-07-2021