WPMS/959/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 1494 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS No. 959 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Y.C. Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Petitioner is challenging judgment and orders dated 01.02.2022 and 21.04.2022 passed by Collector, Rudraprayag & District Judge, Rudraprayag, respectively.

By the first order, Collector, Rudraprayag had imposed penalty of ₹3,95,000/- under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 and another penalty of ₹5,000/- under Section 74-A of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, total amounting to ₹4,00,000/-, upon petitioner.

Learned District Judge, Rudraprayag affirmed the order passed by Collector, as regards penalty of ₹3,95,000/- imposed upon petitioner under Section 72 of Excise Act.

According to petitioner, due to marriage in his family, he purchased liquor from an authorised liquor shop in District Rudraprayag, and while returning, petitioner's vehicle was intercepted and seized on the charge of possessing more quantity of liquor than what was permitted under the Rules.

In the proceedings initiated before Collector, Rudraprayag, petitioner moved a compounding application, in which he admitted that he was in possession of liquor, quantity whereof, was more than permissible limit.

The valuation report submitted by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Rudraprayag (in short "ARTO"), indicates market value of seized vehicle as ₹5,75,000/-.

Having regard to the confession made by petitioner and also the valuation report submitted by ARTO, Collector, Rudraprayag imposed penalty of ₹3,95,000/- upon petitioner under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act and further penalty of ₹5,000/- under Section 74-A of said Act and it was further provided that if petitioner deposited the amount of penalty within stipulated time, then the vehicle shall be released in his favour, if not wanted in any other case. It was further provided that in case, petitioner fails to deposit the amount, then the vehicle shall be sold through auction and the sale- proceeds thereof shall be deposited in the public exchequer.

Petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal under Section 72(7) of U.P. Excise Act. The said appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge vide judgment dated 21.04.2022 and the penalty of ₹3,95,000/-, imposed by Collector under Section 72 of the Act, was affirmed.

Petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid judgments/orders in the present writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that petitioner's vehicle was seized, as it was found carrying more quantity of Liquor than what was permitted and proceedings were initiated against him. Petitioner made confessional statement in his compounding application filed before Collector, therefore, Collector called a report from ARTO regarding market value of petitioner's vehicle.

Proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 72 of the Act provides that owner of seized vehicle shall be given an option to pay in lieu of its confiscation such fine as the Collector thinks adequate, not exceeding its market value on the date of its seizure.

Thus, Collector was well within his right to impose fine of an amount less than market value of the vehicle. Thus, the order passed by Collector under Section 72(2) of the Excise Act cannot be faulted, however, Collector could not have invoked Section 74-A(1) of the said Act for imposing further penalty of ₹5,000/-, as it is nobody's case that petitioner was holding a licence/ permit or pass under Excise Act thus there is no question of violation of condition of such licence/permit or pass. Thus, learned District Judge rightly modified the order passed by Collector to that limited extent.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ petition.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.05.2022 Aswal