- (1.) THE defects are taken note of and are ignored. By way of this intra -court appeal, the appellants in the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan seek to question the order dated 14.01.2013, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the prayer of interim relief in a pending writ petition (SBCWP No. 7763/2012).
(2.) THE order passed by the Commissioner Excise on 20.06.2012 under Section 69 (4) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1950') imposing fine in the sum of Rs. 8,50,000/ - in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle, said to have been used in illegal transportation of the excisable articles, has been challenged in the writ petition aforesaid. Therein, the learned Single Judge passed an ex -parte interim order dated 30.07.2012 to the effect that the vehicle confiscated would not be auctioned on the condition of the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/ - and furnishing solvency security for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur. It was also directed that upon compliance of the order so passed by the Court, the vehicle seized shall be released to the petitioner on Supurdaginama. The said interim order dated 30.07.2012 has been confirmed by the impugned order dated 14.01.2013. The learned counsel for the appellants seek to submit that apart from other submissions and grounds, the appellants have a strong ground to urge before the learned Single Judge that there exits an alternative remedy of appeal per Section 9 -A of the Act of 1950; and in fact, several other similar nature writ petitions have been dismissed by different Benches of this Court. It is submitted that in the given set of circumstances, the confirmation of interim relief in this matter is likely to operate prejudicial to the appellants.
(3.) WITHOUT any comments on the merits of the submissions sought to be made, so far the present appeal is concerned, we could only reiterate that grant or refusal of interim relief is essentially a matter within the jurisdiction and discretion of the learned Single Judge dealing with the writ petition; and, ordinarily, such an exercise of discretion does not call for interference in intra -court appeal, unless a strong case of substantial failure of justice or prejudice is made out. That being not the position in the present case, we are not inclined to entertain this intra -court appeal. However, in the interest of justice, we would leave it open for the appellants to make appropriate submissions before the learned Single Judge for consideration of the writ petition at an early date; and for consideration of their contentions including those relating to the availability of alternative remedy and other orders passed by the co -ordinate Benches. Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands dismissed.;