JUDGMENT 1. - Seeking to challenge the order dated 30.09.2005 as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer in Excise Appeal No. 21/2002 that was filed under Section 9-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950') against the order dated 28.06.2002 as passed by the Additional Commissioner (Excise), Jodhpur, this writ petition was filed on behalf of the named petitioners through their alleged power of attorney holder only on 13.04.2006. 2. The office made a report on this case file on 06.05.2006 and pointed out as many as 7 defects as under:- "(1) On file cover, law point, vires not challenged, whether S.B., Service/Misc. matter, Department name not mentioned. (2) In index paging not made & signature not made by counsel. (3) Paging of petition incorrect page No. 7 not filed. (4) Affidavit in support of documents not filed at proper place. (5) Type copy of A/2 not filed. (6) Registration number of counsel Mr. P.K. Sharma has not been mentioned. (7) Power of attorney not filed." 3. After the report aforesaid, the matter was rotated in the office several times with the report that the defects had not been removed; and when placed before the Registrar (Administration) on 04.03.2008, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for and was granted time up to 18.03.2008 to remove the defects. Nothing, however, was done to remove the defects and the matter was, again, rotated in the office several times. On 17.02.2009, the Registrar (Administration), after noticing that the defects had yet not been removed, directed the matter to be placed for orders before the Court this day. 4. On the matter being called out, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for granting a week's time to do the needful in the matter. Upon this Court expressing reservations that for about three years, the matter has remained pending in the defects side and the defects have not been removed; and asking the learned counsel to make submissions on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case file could not be located in his office. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to examine the merits of the case on the basis of the material, whatever, available on record. 6. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no option but to examine the merits of the case on the basis of the material, whatever, available on record. 6. From the material placed on record, it appears that on 19.05.2002, the Police Station, Khajuwala, Bikaner found the vehicle in question, a Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-13 C 5760 carrying 2,500 pouches of liquor without any licence and without transportation permit. Such transportation and possession of liquor having been found illegal, the liquor and the vehicle were seized; and necessary report was forwarded to the concerned authorities of the Excise Department. Thereafter, upon an application made on behalf of the petitioners, the Additional Commissioner (Excise), Jodhpur, by his order dated 28.06.2002, extended an option to the petitioners to deposit fine in lieu of confiscation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The vehicle was to be released upon deposit of such fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and else, the vehicle was to stand confiscated. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.06.2002, the petitioners preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue that has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.09.2005. The only argument raised on behalf of the petitioners-appellants in the said appeal had been that they were not aware about their vehicle having been used for such transportation of liquor without permit. The learned Members of the Board noticed that the facts of transportation and possession of liquor were admitted; and found that the penalty imposed was perfectly in accord with the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the quantum of penalty was not excessive. The learned Members commented that the penalty could have been imposed up to the market value of the vehicle and the amount of penalty as imposed in this case was rather lesser than the market value of the vehicle in question. 8. It appears from the submissions as made in the writ petition that while filing the aforesaid appeal before the Board of Revenue, the petitioners-appellants sought exemption from depositing 75% of the penalty amount but such a request was rejected by the Board by its order dated 23.07.2002 (Annex.4); and on 17.08.2002, the petitioners did deposit such 75% of the penalty amount; and thereafter, the Board directed the vehicle to be released upon the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 25%. However, after rejection of the appeal by the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2005, the District Excise Officer, Bikaner directed the petitioners to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- under the notice dated 19.11.2005 (Annex.8). 9. The essential ground in challenge to the impugned orders as stated in the petition is that illegal carriage of liquor in the vehicle in question was not within the knowledge of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners seek interference in the order impugned only on the basis of their alleged want of knowledge; and else, the fact is not in dispute that liquor was being carried in the vehicle in question without permit. In the face of such a fact situation, there does not appear any reason for this Court to consider any interference in the impugned order dated 30.09.2005 in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. 10. It is also noticed that seeking to question the order dated 30.09.2005, this writ petition was filed only on 13.04.2006 and then, for about three years the petitioners have not taken care to remove the defects. Though defects Nos. 1 to 6 are formal in nature but do show that the petitioners have not taken care to file a properly constituted petition to this Court. Moreover, defect No. 7 as pointed out in this case strikes at the very competence of this petition as filed through the alleged power of attorney holder of the petitioners for want of a copy of the power of attorney. 11. There is absolutely no reason as to why the defects have not been removed for all this length of time. Then, the petition is neither competent nor has been filed within reasonable time. All these lacunae apart, the petition is absolutely bereft of merits. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, the prayer as made on behalf of the petitioners is refused; and the writ petition stands rejected.Petition Dismissed. *******