Judgment : The petitioner is a General Insurance Company. One Mr.G.Gabirial took a policy covering the TATA SUMO VICTA EX Car belonging to him and bearing Regn.No.TN-22 BZ 9056. The said vehicle was found missing from 06.11.2011 onwards. On a complaint made by Mr.G.Gabirial to the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station, a case was registered in Crime No.658/2011 on 09.11.2011. Despite the steps taken by Investigating Officer, the vehicle could not be traced. Therefore, on 10.04.2012, the Investigating Officer issued a Certificate stating that the vehicle was not traceable. (It is not known as to what has happened to the further fate of the case.). Relying on the said certificate, Mr.G.Gabirial made a claim for a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- from the petitioner under the Insurance Policy. Accepting the said claim, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to Mr.G.Gabirial, on 23.05.2012, by means of a cheque. 2. In the meanwhile, the above said vehicle was found moving on Karur – Dindigul Road on 10.03.2012 and the same was intercepted at 10.00 a.m. by one Mr.M.Mahesh, Inspector of Police, attached to the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police at Karur. He found that one Mr.Ramachandran @ Karuppaiah @ Ramakrishnan @ Radhakrishan, S/o.Silaiappan, was in charge of the vehicle. The vehicle was found carrying illicit liquor in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said Inspector of Police attached to Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police at Karur arrested the accused and seized the vehicle and brought them to the police station. He registered a case in Crime No.74/2012 under Section 4(1)(aaa) read with Section 4(1-4) of the Act and Rules 5 & 6 of TNRS Rules, 2000 as well as under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Admittedly, the vehicle was not produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate to whom FIR was forwarded by the Police. Instead, the respondent herein, who is the Prohibition Officer for Karur District, appointed under Section 25 of the Act, initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Act. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent issued a notice to Mr.Gabirial, namely the owner of the vehicle. Instead, the respondent herein, who is the Prohibition Officer for Karur District, appointed under Section 25 of the Act, initiated proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Act. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent issued a notice to Mr.Gabirial, namely the owner of the vehicle. Mr.Gabirial submitted his reply stating that the vehicle was stolen away long before and in respect of the same, on his complaint, a case had been registered by the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station. He also submitted that he had received a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-, as compensation, from the petitioner/Insurance Company under the Policy of Insurance, based on the certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station that the vehicle was not traceable. Thereafter, the respondent did not choose to either inform the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station about the seizure of the vehicle or to the petitioner/Insurance Company. He simply passed final order on 27.12.2012 in Na.Ka.No.142/Ku.Kaa.Ka/MVA/ Karur/2012, thereby ordering confiscation of the said vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Act. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings. Subsequently, the respondent, in pursuance of the above confiscation order, brought the said vehicle for sale in public auction. At that time, the petitioner came to know of the above confiscation order. Immediately, the petitioner approached the respondent and made a claim for the vehicle. The respondent issued proceedings, dated 25.01.2013, permitting the petitioner to take back the vehicle, after paying a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 5. When writ petition came up for hearing on 13.02.2013, this Court granted interim injunction restraining the respondent from auctioning the vehicle. In pursuance of the same, the vehicle has not been auctioned and the same is now in the custody of the respondent. 6. While so, this writ petition has come up for final hearing, today. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records, carefully. 7. At the outset, the learned Additional Government pleader raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 14(5) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows: “14(5). I have also perused the records, carefully. 7. At the outset, the learned Additional Government pleader raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 14(5) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows: “14(5). Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation under sub Section (4) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of such order, appeal to the Court of Sessions having jurisdiction." But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being an insurer of the vehicle, was not a party to the confiscation made under Section 14(4) of the Act. He would further submit that since, strictly going by Section 14(4) of the Act, notice was issued only to Mr.Gabirial and since Mr.Gabirial in turn had not informed the petitioner about the seizure of the vehicle in connection with the case registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police at Karur, the petitioner was not aware of the proceedings, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to it. The learned counsel would further submit that though there is no notice contemplated under Section 14(4) of the Act to the petitioner, notice of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would further submit that since in the instant case, the impugned order had come to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the instant case, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order under Section 14(4) of the Act, since the said provision does not provide for issuance of notice to anyone other than the owner of the vehicle or to the person from whom the vehicle was seized. Thus, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it is very well open for it to file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Act and thus this writ petition is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the above submissions. 10. Thus, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, it is very well open for it to file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Act and thus this writ petition is not maintainable. 9. I have considered the above submissions. 10. Of course, it is true that a plain reading of Section 14(4) of the Act would give an impression that notice is to be issued either to the owner of the vehicle or to the person from whom it was seized. But, the said provision does not prohibit the authority from issuing notice to any other interested person. It is too well settled right from ManekaGandhi Case, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 , that though the statute does not contain a provision for issuing notice to afford opportunity to an individual, if the order that may be passed is likely to cause prejudice or result in civil consequence against the individual concerned, then it is absolutely necessary for the authority to issue notice and to afford sufficient opportunity for him to make his submissions. This requirement is in tune with the principles of natural justice. Now, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the principles of natural justice as one of the facets of fundamental rights, more particularly Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the instant case, it is not as though the respondent was not aware of the fact that the person who was found in charge of the vehicle had stolen the vehicle and further the petitioner herein has got interest over the property, because the petitioner has paid Rs.3,40,000/- to Mr.Gabirial, namely the owner of the vehicle. Despite the reply submitted by Mr.Gabirial bringing to the notice of the respondent that the vehicle had been stolen away and that a case had been registered in respect of the same by the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station, the respondent did not choose to issue notice to the petitioner and to afford an opportunity to it. This, in my considered opinion, is a serious violation of principles of natural justice. The contention that no such notice is required to be issued under Section 14(4) of the Act, except the owner of the vehicle and to the person from whom the vehicle was seized, cannot be accepted in view of the above well settled legal position. This, in my considered opinion, is a serious violation of principles of natural justice. The contention that no such notice is required to be issued under Section 14(4) of the Act, except the owner of the vehicle and to the person from whom the vehicle was seized, cannot be accepted in view of the above well settled legal position. Thus, I hold that this writ petition is maintainable, since the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. Now, turning to the facts of the case, admittedly, the vehicle was seized from the accused in C.C.No.74 of 2012, who might have committed theft of the vehicle or received the stolen property. Neither it is their case that the vehicle was entrusted by the owner to the accused nor was the offence committed by the accused with the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. Had there been a notice issued to the insurer of the vehicle, the said position would have been appraised of to the respondent. Even in the absence of such an appraisal, it is well known to the respondent that the vehicle had been stolen away and the same had been used for illegal purpose, by either the thief or the receiver of the stolen property. When this much of information was available with the respondent, it is strange that the respondent had chosen to pass an order of confiscation, when the owner of the vehicle had no knowledge of the commission of the offence by the person in-charge of the vehicle at the time when the same was intercepted. When the owner happened to be the victim of the offence of theft, it is not legal on the part of the respondent to confiscate the vehicle to the detriment of the interest of the owner as well as the insurer of the vehicle. Confiscation of the property of an innocent person cannot be allowed. Thus, I hold that the order of confiscation passed by the respondent suffers from serious illegality and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 13. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is the conduct of the respondent. Confiscation of the property of an innocent person cannot be allowed. Thus, I hold that the order of confiscation passed by the respondent suffers from serious illegality and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 13. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is the conduct of the respondent. Atleast, after the explanation submitted by Mr.Gabirial, it was very well brought to the notice of the respondent that the vehicle was a stolen property in connection with the case in Crime No.658 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station. Having come to know the same, it would have been the legal obligation of the respondent to inform the same to the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station, in which case the vehicle would have been taken and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The respondent had chosen not to produce the vehicle, either before the jurisdictional Magistrate having jurisdiction over Nazarethpettai Police Station or before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case in Crime No.74/2012, registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police at Karur. In a mechanical fashion, the respondent had chosen to pass the confiscation order and also to bring the property for sale. Similarly, the consequential order passed by the respondent permitting the petitioner to take the vehicle by paying the cost of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- is unjust and the same is not sustainable. Had the respondent informed the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpet Police Station and had the vehicle been produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, this writ petition would not have come to be filed before this Court. 14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is an aggrieved person. The petitioner is, admittedly, the insurer of the vehicle, who has already paid a sum of Rs.3,40,0000/-to Mr.Gabirial, owner of the vehicle. Had the vehicle been seized or produced in connection with the case in Crime No.658 of 2011 on the file of the Nazarethpettai Police Station, the vehicle would have been returned to the owner of the vehicle viz., Mr.Gabirial, in which Mr.Gabirial would have repaid the amount which has been paid by the insurance company viz., the petitioner herein. Had the vehicle been seized or produced in connection with the case in Crime No.658 of 2011 on the file of the Nazarethpettai Police Station, the vehicle would have been returned to the owner of the vehicle viz., Mr.Gabirial, in which Mr.Gabirial would have repaid the amount which has been paid by the insurance company viz., the petitioner herein. Had the vehicle been returned to Mr.Gabirial, as provided under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. by the jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case in Crime No.658 of 2011 on the file of the Nazarethpettai Police Station is pending, certainly there would have been no action to confiscate the vehicle by the respondent. Confiscation of a vehicle under Section 14(4) of the Act could be made, if the vehicle had been used by the accused with the knowledge or authority of the owner of the vehicle. The law cannot be blindly interpreted to the detriment of an innocent person. Law is always vibrant and vigilant which tends to punish the culprits and to rescue the innocent victims. 15. Here, in this case, as I have narrated the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, an innocent has been made to suffer, whereas the real culprits, who committed the offence of theft of the vehicle, have been allowed to go scot-free. This cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by holding that this writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal before the Sessions Court. 16. Referring to Section 14(5) of the Act, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the remedy for the petitioner to challenge the order of confiscation is to file an appeal to the Sessions Court. There was also a debate before this Court as to whether the insurer of the vehicle has got locus standi to file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Act, because the insurer is not a party to the order of confiscation made under Section 14(4) of the Act. Section 14(5) of the Act cannot be allowed to receive a narrow interpretation. Since an order under Section 14(4) of the Act results in civil consequences, whoever is likely to suffer by such consequence is an aggrieved person in terms of Section 14(5) of the Act. Section 14(5) of the Act cannot be allowed to receive a narrow interpretation. Since an order under Section 14(4) of the Act results in civil consequences, whoever is likely to suffer by such consequence is an aggrieved person in terms of Section 14(5) of the Act. In the instant case, since the petitioner has paid the insurance amount to the owner of the vehicle, the “insurance company”, is an aggrieved person. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has got right to file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Act, against the impugned order, as an aggrieved person. 17. Though there is such an alternative remedy available for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14(5) of the Act, on that score, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition. It is well settled that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be circumscribed by any statutory provision. The constitution does not limit the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, this Court, in general, declines to entertain a writ petition. This is only a self-imposed restriction. But, it is also the law that in appropriate cases, this Court can deviate from the self-imposed restriction so as to entertain a writ petition, when the Court feels that ends of justice would be met with only by interfering with the illegal order passed by an authority. Applying the said principle of law, in this case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order, instead of driving the petitioner to approach the Court of Sessions by way of an appeal. 18. In view of all the above, this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The order of confiscation passed by the respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.142/Ku.Kaa.Ka/ MVA/Karur/2012, dated 27.12.2012, and the consequential order dated 25.01.2013, are hereby set aside. (ii) The respondent is forthwith directed to hand over the vehicle to the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station, who shall reopen the investigation in Crime No.658 of 2011 and produce the vehicle before the jurisdictional Magistrate. (iii) Mr.Gabirial, is at liberty to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate for return of the vehicle. (ii) The respondent is forthwith directed to hand over the vehicle to the Inspector of Police, Nazarethpettai Police Station, who shall reopen the investigation in Crime No.658 of 2011 and produce the vehicle before the jurisdictional Magistrate. (iii) Mr.Gabirial, is at liberty to approach the learned jurisdictional Magistrate for return of the vehicle. (iv) Since the vehicle has been traced and it is available for being taken back by Mr.Gabirial, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate steps to recover the amount paid to Mr.Gabirial, after affording sufficient opportunity to him and by following the procedure established by law. (v) The Inspector of Police, in charge of Nazarethpettai Police Station shall investigate the matter in Crime No.658 of 2011, thoroughly and prosecute the culprits, who committed the theft of the said vehicle and file final report within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.