The Petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage operating on the route Thrissur - Guruvayur - Kozhikode. On 22.03.2012, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the excise officials for the reason that the same was used for illicit transportation of foreign liquor. According to the excise officials, 57 bottles of foreign liquor were found concealed in the vehicle of the petitioner. Ext.P4 notice was issued thereafter by the second respondent to the petitioner directing him to show cause why his vehicle shall not to be confiscated under Section 67B of the Abkari Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short. Petitioner sent Ext.P5 reply to Ext.P4 show-cause notice. Thereupon, the second respondent ordered confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order was challenged by the petitioner before the third respondent in an appeal under Section 67E of the Act and the third respondent, as per Ext.P8 order, dropped the proceedings initiated against the vehicle of the petitioner, after setting aside Ext.P6 order. Ext.P8 order was set aside by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P10 order, in exercise of his powers under Section 67F of the Act. Ext.P10 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. It is beyond dispute that if any offence under the Act is committed by means of a vehicle, the same is liable for confiscation under Section 67B of the Act. Section 67C of the Act dealing with the procedure of confiscation reads thus:

Issue of Show cause notice before confiscation under section 67B.-

(1) No order confiscating any property shall be made under section 67B unless the person from whom the same is seized-

(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;

(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation; and

(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), no order confiscating any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance shall be made under Section 67B if the owner of the animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the liquor or intoxicating drug or the material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus or the receptacle, package or covering without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

Section 67C of the Act prohibits confiscation, if the use of the vehicle for commission of the offence is without the knowledge or connivance of the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle, and if each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. In other words, the power of confiscation can be exercised only if the authorised officer is satisfied that the vehicle has been used for commission of offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or the person in charge of the vehicle or that the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle had not taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. An order of confiscation of a vehicle cannot, therefore, be made automatically for the reason that an offence has been committed making use of that vehicle. True, the burden to establish that the vehicle had not been used for commission of the offence with the knowledge or connivance of the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle and that both of them had taken all necessary and reasonable precautions against such use is on the owner of the vehicle. However, since the statute does not contemplate confiscation of a vehicle when the same is used for commission of an offence, without the knowledge and connivance of the