JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.25966 of 2021. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner owns a mini van bearing registration No.KL-03/AD-988. The vehicle owned by the petitioner was seized and detained by the third respondent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 and 63 of the Kerala Abkari Act (the Act). The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.09.2021, at about 18.00 hrs., he was found transporting in his vehicle Indian Made Foreign Liquor in excess of the permissible quantity. The quantity of Indian Made Foreign Liquor allegedly transported by the petitioner is 4 litres. The ofÏcer who seized and detained the vehicle later produced the same before the second respondent, the competent authority under Section 67B of the Act for initiating proceedings for confiscation for having used the vehicle for committing the offences alleged. As the proceedings for confiscation is likely to take time for its culmination, the petitioner applied to the second respondent for release of the vehicle pending disposal of the confiscation proceedings. The application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the second respondent as per Ext.P4 communication, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the value of the vehicle, as was assessed by the competent authority, in the Treasury as provided for under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (the Rules). The writ petition was filed seeking a modification of Ext.P4 communication so as to enable the petitioner to claim release of the vehicle on furnishing bank guarantee, instead of cash deposit in the Treasury. The petitioner placed reliance, among others, on the decision of this Court in Karthikeyan v. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Ernakulam, 2011 (1) KLT

334, in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition.

3. Ext.P4 communication has been issued by the second respondent in accordance with Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules which provides that a vehicle liable to be confiscated may be released temporarily against deposit of an amount equal to the market value of the vehicle in the Treasury. In Karthikeyan, in an almost identical case, a Division Bench of this Court has held that in exceptional circumstances, this Court would be justified under Article 226 of the Constitution in excusing a person from complying with the statutory provisions on equivalent appropriate and stringent conditions, without impairing the effect of the statutory provisions and without violating any of the express interdictions created by statute. The learned Single Judge took the view that the case on hand is not an exceptional case where the proposition laid down by this Court in Karthikeyan could be applied and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the only allegation against the petitioner being that he has possessed Indian Made Foreign Liquor in excess of the permissible quantity, the maximum punishment that could be imposed on him, even if the entire allegations levelled against him are accepted as true, is a only a fine of Rs.5,000/-. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the quantity of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor allegedly possessed by him being only 4 litres, it cannot be said, at any stretch of imagination, that the petitioner has used his vehicle for committing the said offence, for initiating proceedings under Section 67B of the Act. It was argued by the learned counsel that the power conferred on the second respondent to confiscate a vehicle used for committing the offence being a discretionary one, the second respondent ought not have initiated