The petitioner successfully bid for and purchased an auto rickshaw (Registration No. KL-8/L-8943) at a public auction conducted by the Assistant Excise Commissioner after the vehicle was confiscated under the Kerala Abkari Act due to its involvement in an abkari offence. (!) The original registered owner had financed the purchase from the 4th respondent, resulting in a hypothecation endorsement in the vehicle's RC book. (!) Following the purchase, the petitioner applied for re-registration in his name, which was granted by the 2nd respondent (registering authority), but the hypothecation endorsement was retained. (!) The petitioner issued a lawyer notice (Ext.P4) demanding deletion of the endorsement, received no response, and filed the writ petition. (!)

The 4th respondent (financier) claimed lack of prior knowledge of the confiscation or seizure, stated that it was notified during re-registration, and asserted that the endorsement complied with motor vehicles registration procedures given the subsisting liability.[15000016560001] The official respondents did not file a counter but indicated the registering authority followed applicable procedures for the transfer.[15000016560002]

The court held that property confiscated under the relevant provision of the Kerala Abkari Act vests absolutely in the Government, as clarified by another provision of the Act, terminating any prior rights of the owner or financier upon confiscation.[15000016560003] The hypothecation endorsement in the RC book (Ext.P3) was therefore unsustainable and was quashed.[15000016560003] The writ petition was allowed with costs payable by the 2nd respondent due to its failure to act on the lawyer notice.[15000016560003]