Ramachandra Menon, J.

Whether Section 53B of the Kerala Abkari Act (the 'Act' in short) conferring power upon a 'Court' to grant interim custody of the vehicle seized in connection with commission of an Abkari offence [on execution of a Bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of the vehicle] without prejudice to the proceedings to be continued in connection with Section 67B of the Abkari Act (for confiscation) has wiped off the power of the officer concerned under Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (herein after referred to as the 'Confiscation Rules') to insist "cash security equivalent to the market value" for granting interim custody ? Does Rule 4 (2) (a) of the Rules stand in violation of Section 53B of the Kerala Abkari Act ? Could the term 'Court' as it appears under Section 53B of the Act be reckoned as having a wider meaning, to include any competent authority/forum, who passes an order on the question of 'interim custody' of the vehicle seized under the Act ? Has the law has been correctly laid down in Abdul Nazer Vs. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 1073] with reference to Section 53B of the Act ? Whether the verdict passed by the learned single Judge in the instant case, declining the relief sought for and declaring that Section 53B of the Act and Rule 4 of the Rules cater to two different situations and that there is no conflict in this regard requires any interference? These are the main questions to be considered and answered by this Court in this appeal preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant, who lost the battle in the first instance.

2. The factual sequence revealed from the proceedings is that, the jeep bearing registration No. KL13 G 2940 owned and driven by the petitioner/appellant was seized on 14.08.2015 by the second respondent, for the alleged transportation of 21 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('IMFL' in short) meant for sale only in Puducherry State and thus involving commission of an offence punishable under Section 58 of the Act. It was alleged that the appellant/writ petitioner, who was owner of the vehicle, himself was driving the jeep at the relevant time. A crime was registered against him as Crime No. 71 of 2015 of the Excise Range Office, Iratty and the proceedings are going on.

3. While so, an application was submitted by the appellant on 19.02.2016 before the first respondent, for granting interim custody of the vehicle. After considering the said application, the first respondent passed Ext. P2 order, granting interim custody of the jeep bearing No. KL 13 G 2940, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Apart from the conditions for proving ownership over the vehicle and for causing endorsement to be made in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle (that such interim custody was being granted during pendency of the Abkari case registered involving the said vehicle) and for execution of a 'Bond' on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/- in terms of the requirements under clause (a) to (f) of condition No.4, it was stipulated as the prime requirement that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had to be deposited in the District Treasury Savings Bank Account, Kannur towards the market value of the vehicle fixed by the Excise Mechanical Engineer. This was sought to be challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court, mainly contending that interim custody of the vehicle was liable to be released on execution of a 'Simple Bond' for the cash equivalent with reference to market value of the vehicle in terms of Section 53B of the Act, and that Ext.P2 order was bad in law to the said extent.

4. A counter affidavit was filed from the part of the first respondent opposing the relief sought for and asserting that Ext. P2 order was strictly in conformity with Rule 4 (2) (a) of the 'Confiscation Rules'. It was also pointed out that, Section 53B of the Act was having no relevance, once an order was passed by the competent officer granting interi