Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record.

2. The petitioner, the owner of a motor vehicle, assails Ext.P5 order of confiscation passed by the second respondent, who, in fact, confirmed the initial order of confiscation in Ext.P3 by the third respondent.

3. The facts in brief are that, on 21.07.2010, the petitioner's vehicle while being used by another person, namely one Mr. Shijo, was intercepted and seized by the fourth respondent on the allegation that it was used as an escort vehicle for another vehicle carrying certain contraband. In fact, Crime No. 27 of 2010 for the offence under Section 55(a) of the Act was also registered.

4. In the course of time, the third respondent, exercising his powers under Section 67B of the Abkari Act (the Act), confiscated the petitioner's vehicle through Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal and invited Ext.P4 order from the second respondent, who confirmed the third respondent's Ext.P3 order of confiscation. Further aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Smt. Neethu G. Nadh, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel