This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P2 to the extent it imposes condition No.2 directing deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- towards market value of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 13-G 2940 involved in an Abkari offence, facing adjudication proceedings, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of jeep bearing registration No.KL 13-G 2940, which was seized by the 2nd respondent on 14.08.2015, alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec.58 of the Kerala Abkari Act [for short, 'the Act']. Thereupon, the vehicle was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent along with the articles. The allegation is that petitioner was found transporting 21 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in the vehicle, meant for sale in Puducherry State only.

3. Matters being so, petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application dated 19.02.2016, seeking interim custody of the vehicle, before the 1st respondent. First respondent thereupon passed Ext.P2 order dated 21.03.2016, granting interim custody of the vehicle on certain conditions. Among other conditions, condition No.2 is that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- being the market value of the vehicle at the District Treasury, Kannur, within 15 days of receipt of Ext.P2. Aggrieved by the said condition in Ext.P2, petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

4. 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands. It is also contended that, the order impugned is in accordance with Rule 4(2)(a) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. It is also urged that Sec.53B of the Act has no relevance at all after the competent officer passed an order either under Sec.67B or the Rules temporarily releasing the vehicle. Moreover, it is also contended that, such a situation is taken care of under Sec.53B itself.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

6. The predominant contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that, consequent to introduction of Sec.53B of the Abkari Act, the 1st respondent is bound to release the vehicle on bond. Learned counsel has also contended that this issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Abdul Nazer v. State of Kerala'

[2014 (2) KLT 1073]. According to the learned counsel, the 1st respondent should have released the vehicle on a bond rather than insisting for cash security, and since the 1st respondent has not followed Sec.53B and the decision rendered by this Court, the action of the 1st respondent is totally illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the crux of the matter involved in this writ petition revolves round Sec.53B of the Act, which read thus:

"53B. Jurisdiction of courts on articles seized.-- Whenever any vehicle or other conveyance used for committing any offence is seized or detained under this Act, and if any court finds that it shall be released temporarily, it shall do so with direction to execute sufficient bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of such vehicle or conveyance, to be fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of or above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the State Public Works Department, for production of such vehicle or conveyance on demand before the court or authorised officer and such order shall not prevent the authorised officer from taking or continuing action under Section 67B of this Act."

7. On a reading of Sec.53B, what I could gather is that whenever any vehicle or other conveyance etc. used for committing any offence is seized or detained under the Act and if any Court finds that it shall be released temporarily, it shall do so in accordance with the stipulations contained thereunder. However, on reading the said provision further, it can be seen that the order pa