AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have called for the Writ Petition also, since the Government had submitted that there was no counter filed and the order was passed at the
admission stage, after three adjournments. Now the Government has filed a counter affidavit. In the nature of the order to be passed, we are of the
opinion that we need not direct the learned Single Judge to reconsider the interim order, since we also agree with it and in the fitness of things, it is
only proper that the learned Single Judge be left to consider the matter finally.
The Writ Petition was filed for extension of a permit granted to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate to
import 1,00,000 bulk litres of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) from the State of Madhyapradesh as per Ext.P1. The goods as per the NOC,
purchased from the 2nd petitioner was transported in five lorries; three of which reached its destination i.e. at the 1st petitioner''s premises, and the
other two were detained by the Karnataka State Excise Department. As is seen from Ext.P2, two of the tanker lorries bearing Nos.MP-09/HH-
3077 and MP-09/HH- 5956 containing 20,000 litres of ENA each were detained on the drivers being caught red-handed while siphoning the
ENA from the vehicles by way of plastic pipes into 16 cans. A crime was registered and detention was made of the tankers and the goods on
12.9.2016.
Later, the petitioners approached the Department through their Advocate and release of the vehicles were ordered. Three Bank Guarantees
were also submitted before the Authorised Officer of the Karnataka State, on the strength of which the vehicles were released on 9.8.2017. The
detention was made on 12.9.2016 within the period of permit as stipulated in the NOC (Ext.P1).
The 1st petitioner then made a request as per Ext.P3, enclosing Ext.P2 for extending the period of permit to transport the ENA now released.
Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Additional Excise Commissioner refusing to extend the permit on account of delay, since the Kerala Rectified
Spirit Rules, 1972 did not permit extension of permit beyond 30 days. The application for extension should be within 30 days is the specific
stipulation made in the Rules. That having not been done, the extension was declined and the amount remitted as per the NOC was directed to be
forfeited. Exts.P5 to P7 are cases in similar situations, where the Excise Department granted extension on payment of fine. The petitioners, hence,
approached this Court challenging Ext.P4.
The learned Single Judge passed the following interim order:-
Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter affidavit. Post after two weeks. In the meanwhile
there will be a direction to the second respondent to revalidate Exhibit P1 permit by a further period of two weeks, at the earliest possible time.
After the vehicle has reached the State of Kerala, a report shall be filed in the Office of the Advocate General.
This interim order is under challenge in this Writ Appeal.
The learned Senior Government Pleader in challenge of the interim order submits that there is absolutely no provision which permits extension, if
an application is not made within 30 days. It is also argued that the interim order virtually allows the Writ Petition. The learned Senior Government
Pleader also expresses concern of the detained goods being ENA having been rendered unfit for human consumption for it having remained inside
the tanker, which was exposed to the climatic elements. Whether it could be eventually processed for consumption by human-beings; is the
question raised.
In the present case, there was no possibility of the 1st petitioner making an application within 30 days, since the vehicles and goods were
detained by the Karnataka State Excise Department. If at all, an application was made and allowed, then the petitioners could not have guaranteed
that the goods would be transported within a further 30 days period, which is the maximum period for which extension is granted. Hence, the
petitioners cannot be faulted for having waited till the release was ordered by the Karnataka State Excise Department.
We are of the opinion that the refusal to extend the permit would only cause loss of the entire goods, for transportation of which, fees were also
remitted as per the NOC issued at Ext.P1. The learned Single Judge considering the aforesaid facts directed extension of Ext.P1 permit by a
further period of two weeks, since the transport had to be effected and then the issue could be considered in the Writ Petition itself. The learned
Single Judge had also directed that a report be filed in the Office of the Advocate General, after the vehicles reaching the State of Kerala. We are
of the opinion that to address the concern expressed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, on reaching the 1st petitioner''s premises, which is
a bonded warehouse of the Excise authorities, the Excise authorities incharge should take a sample of the ENA and cause analysis of the same in a
Government Analytical Laboratory. The goods shall be stored separately at the supervision of the Excise authorities till the report of the
Government Analytical Laboratory is received by the Excise authorities. The report shall be placed before the learned Single Judge and the Writ
Petition considered. The ENA shall be put to use only if permitted by the learned Single Judge.
We, hence, decline to interfere with the impugned order, but however make the modifications as indicated herein above. The 1st petitioner shall
be granted extension of permit within a period of two weeks as directed by the learned Single Judge, after imposing such fine, as has been done in
Exts.P5 to P7. The extension of permit shall be for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
The Writ Appeal, hence, would stand closed with the above observations, making it clear that the learned Single Judge would not be bound by
any of the observations made herein above, which are only prima facie, in nature.