This Article 227 writ petition challenged confiscation of a scooter order by the Additional Collector. The court held that Additional Collector has jurisdiction under Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act and confiscation in favour of the State does not require value assessment. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1487 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mazahir Hasan Respondent :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manuvalkya Upadhyay,Ashutosh Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.
Heard Sri Manuvaikya Upadhyaya and Standing counsel for the respondent.
The writ petition has been filed against the order of Additional Collector dated 1.9.2017 by which he has confiscated vehicle i.e. Activa Scooty bearing no registration number(Chasis No.ME4JF505GU235211 and Engine No.JF50EU3234966) in favour of the State and the order of District Judge dated 9.11.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
The proceeding under Section 72 of Excise Act was initiated against the petitioner on the report of District Excise Officer dated 12.8.2016. In the report it had been stated that during checking 10 bottles of country-made liquor had been recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner. The petitioner was able to run away leaving the vehicle and liquor on the spot. On the notice being issued the petitioner appeared and contested the matter and he accepted his guilt on which he was given penalty to deposit Rs.25,000/- as fine for which he was ready. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which has been dismissed by the District Judge by order dated 9.11.2017.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that in U.P. Excise Act power has been given to the Collector but in the present case impugned order has been passed by Additional Collector. Therefore, order is totally without jurisdiction. He further submits that Additional Collector has not assessed the value of the vehicle when it was confiscated in favour of the State. In appeal all these points were taken but without assigning any reason the aforesaid points were not considered.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties.
The Collector is appointed under Section 14 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and Additional Collector is appointed under
Section 14-A of the same Act to discharge the function of the Collector. Thus, the impugned order has been passed by Additional Collector it cannot be said that it suffers from lack of jurisdiction. By the impugned order vehicle has been confiscated in favour of the State, thus value is not required to be assessed.
The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.3.2018 mt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order passed by an Additional Collector under Section 14-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act suffers from lack of jurisdiction.
Whether assessment of vehicle value is required when vehicle is confiscated in favour of the State.
Mazahir Hasan
State Of Up
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
