Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

The petitioner, the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing No. KL-9/E-7304, has assailed Ext. P7 order of confiscation of his vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act. Succinctly stated, the facts are that the petitioner hired out his vehicle to two Abkari licencees for the purpose of transporting toddy from Chittur to Cherupulassery. Exts. P1 and P2, the permits for transportation, have the number of the vehicle reflected in them as the authorized vehicle for transportation.

2. On 13/04/2004, the Police intercepted the vehicle while it was transporting toddy and found on inspection that apart from transporting toddy, the vehicle was also carrying seventy litres of spirit, a prohibited substance. The said finding on the part of the Police resulted in registration of Crime No. 85/2004 for the alleged offence under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act ('the Act' for brevity). As can be seen from the record, the Police arrested and arrayed the three inmates of the vehicle as accused 1 to 3; having found that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner, they also arrayed the petitioner as the fourth accused, apart from arraying the licencees as accused 5 and 6.

3. In terms of Section 67B of the Act, the Investigating Officer handed over the vehicle to the Authorised Officer, the second respondent, for the purpose of confiscation. In turn, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, in response to which the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 reply.

4. As a matter of subsequent development, the vehicle was released temporarily to the custody of the petitioner on his furnishing a bank guarantee for ` 1,75,000/-, the said amount being assessed as the market value of the vehicle. Later, having held a hearing, the second respondent passed Ext. P4 order under Section 67B of the Act, confiscating the petitioner's vehicle.

5. Aggrieved, when the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the third respondent under Section 67A, it resulted in the remand of the matter to the second respondent, through Ext. P5 order. On remand, nevertheless, the second respondent through Ext. P6 reiterated the earlier Ext. P4 order of confiscation. Though the petitioner once again filed a statutory appeal questioning Ext. P6, the said appeal was dismissed through Ext. P7 order. Resultantly, the authorities have issued the consequential Ext. P8 order requiring the petitioner to surrender the vehicle to the authorities. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Sri. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has given the vehicle on hire to the Abkari licencees and that Exts. P1 and P2 transport permits clearly reflected the number of the vehicle. According to him, the petitioner has taken every precaution to ensure that the vehicle was given on hire for a legitimate purpose. The learned counsel would further contend that so long as the authorities could not establish, as it is a fact, that the petitioner has knowledge of, or has connived with, the other accused in committing the offence of transporting illicit liquor or any contraband, merely because the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, his property, albeit the very vehicle, cannot be subjected to confiscation.

7. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to Section 67C(2) of the Act to contend that it is not an invariable statutory mandate that under all circumstances the vehicle is to be confiscated. According to the learned counsel, it is only an enabling provision empowering the authorities to exercise the discretion concerning the seizure of the vehicle, but only under circumstances warranting such seizure.

8. Eventually the learned counsel has stressed that even the very crime registered against the petitioner and others has also ended in acquittal, and attained finality. Placing reliance on Suraj K.R. v. Excise Inspector, Thrithala and Others, 2013 (2) KHC 211 the lear