Munni Devi Vs. State and ors.

Munni Devi vs State and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Oct 03, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/771864

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/771864
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Govind Mathur, J.
Decided On: Oct 03, 2007
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6132/2006
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1951 - Section 54 r/w Section 69 and 14, 9A--Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Petitioner challenging order of Commissioner imposing penalty of 2,00,000/- upon petitioner and also confiscating vehicle for violation of provision of Section 54 r/w Section 69 of the Act...

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Munni Devi

Respondent

State and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2008(1)WLN499

Excerpt

rajasthan excise act, 1951 - section 54 r/w section 69 and 14, 9a--constitution of india--article 226--writ--maintainability of--petitioner challenging order of commissioner imposing penalty of 2,00,000/- upon petitioner and also confiscating vehicle for violation of provision of section 54 r/w section 69 of the act--petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy under section 9(a)(2) of the act by way of filing appeal before division bench of board of revenue--held, writ petition is dismissed.;writ petition dismissed. - govind mathur, j.1. by this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dt. 12.10.2006 passed by the commissioner (excise), government of rajasthan, udaipur imposing a penalty of rs. 2,00,000/- upon the petitioner and also confiscating vehicle no. up-80/p-9927 for violation of the provisions of section 54 read with section 69 of the rajasthan excise act, 1951.2. the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in view of proviso to section 14 of the act of 1951, the commissioner (excise) by imposing the penalty and confiscating the vehicle acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with him. it is asserted that the petitioner was carrying molasses from sambhal, district muradabad in uttar pradesh to indore in the state of madhya pradesh, thus, as per the proviso to section 14 of the act of 1951 he was not required to have any pass.3. from perusal of the order impugned dt. 12.10.2006, it reveals that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not carrying adequate documents with him to prove that from which station the vehicle concern was carrying molasses and where it was required to be supplied. in present set of facts, i do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition for writ as the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy under sub-section 2 of section 9(a) of the act of 1951 by way of filing an appeal before division bench of the board of revenue, rajasthan, ajmer.4. accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. the petitioner may avail alternative remedy available to him under the rajasthan excise act.

Full Judgment

Govind Mathur, J.

1. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dt. 12.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Excise), Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- upon the petitioner and also confiscating vehicle No. UP-80/P-9927 for violation of the provisions of Section 54 read with Section 69 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1951.

2. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that in view of proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1951, the Commissioner (Excise) by imposing the penalty and confiscating the vehicle acted beyond the jurisdiction vested with him. It is asserted that the petitioner was carrying Molasses from Sambhal, District Muradabad in Uttar Pradesh to Indore in the State of Madhya Pradesh, thus, as per the proviso to Section 14 of the Act of 1951 he was not required to have any pass.

3. From perusal of the order impugned dt. 12.10.2006, it reveals that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not carrying adequate documents with him to prove that from which station the vehicle concern was carrying Molasses and where it was required to be supplied. In present set of facts, I do not consider it appropriate to entertain this petition for writ as the petitioner is having an efficacious alternative remedy under Sub-section 2 of Section 9(A) of the Act of 1951 by way of filing an appeal before Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

4. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed. The petitioner may avail alternative remedy available to him under the Rajasthan Excise Act.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2007 Same Parties Munni Devi vs State and ors. Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge Govind Mathur, J.

Miscellaneous