Judgment :- 1. These two writ appeals have been filed by the State jointly along with the concerned officials of the excise department against the judgments of a learned single Judge of this court allowing O. P. No. 2258 of 1978 and O. P No 1134 of 1978 and quashing the proceedings taken against the writ petitioners for confiscation of two motor vehicles belonging to them under S.67B of the Abkari Act. 1077 (hereinafter called the Act). Since the points raised in the two appeals are substantially identical they have been heard together at the request made by counsel appearing on both sides. 2. Writ Appeal No. 114 of 1980 arises out of O.P. No 2258 of 1978. The writ petitioner therein is the owner of a stage carriage vehicle (motor bus) bearing registration No K.L.C. 8605 which is operating a service on the route Tholpetti-Mannontoddy on the basis of a permit granted by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. On 10-9-1977 at about 2 P. M. while the bus was proceeding from Tholpetti the Circle Inspector of Excise, Mannantoddy stopped the vehicle near Thirunelli Amsom and recovered from one of the passengers 20 bottles containing Indian made foreign liquor which were concealed in a suit-case and 3 bottles of foreign liquor wrapped in paper and kept near that suit-case under the seat. The bus was thereupon seized and besides the concerned passenger, the driver, conductor and the cleaner of the bus were arrested by the preventive officer of the excise department on the ground that there was a violation of S.55A of the Act. The offence against the passenger was later compounded on his remitting Rs. 300 as the compounding fee. Thereafter the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Cannanore issued notice to the writ petitioner under S.67C of the Act to show cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated to the Government. Similar notices were also issued to the driver, conductor and cleaner of the bus. The writ petitioner submitted a detailed representation denying his having committed any offence under the Act and stating that he had no knowledge at all that the passenger concerned was carrying contraband liquor in the suit-case and in the paper package. The said defence was not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and he ordered confiscation of the bus under S.67B of the Act as per his proceedings dated 17-11-1977 evidenced by Ext. P6. The said defence was not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and he ordered confiscation of the bus under S.67B of the Act as per his proceedings dated 17-11-1977 evidenced by Ext. P6. On appeal filed by the writ petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Trivandrum the order of confiscation was modified to the extent of permitting the writ petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000 to the Government in lieu of confiscation within 30 days from the date of the appellate order (Ext. P8 dated 2-6-1978). In rejecting the petitioner's contention that no offence bad been committed by him so as to warrant confiscation of the vehicle under S.67B, the appellate authority took the view that there is no rule or law under which the staff of a stage carriage bus is prevented from checking the luggage of the passengers and that it is their bounden duty to ensure that no contraband articles, the transport of which is prohibited under any law, are sought to be transported in the vehicle of which they are in charge. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority the petitioner approached this court by filing the original petition out of which this appeal has arisen seeking to quash Exts. P6 and P8. 3. Writ Appeal No. 139 of 1980 arises out of O.P. No. 1134 of 1978. The writ petitioner is the owner of a Tempo van bearing registration No. KLC 7977 which is operating a passenger service between Payyannur railway station and Payyannur town on the strength of the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore. On 30-8-1976 while the vehicle was operating the said service it was stopped and checked by the Excise Range Inspector, Payyannur and on inspection it was found that 3 bottles of Mysore arrack covered in a bed sheet was being carried in the van by a passenger by name Kunhikannan. Thereupon the van and the contraband articles were taken into custody by the Excise Range Inspector and a case was registered against the passenger aforementioned. The offence against him was, however, subsequently compounded on his paying an amount of Rs. 300. Proceedings were, later, initiated against the writ petitioner by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Cannanore under S.67B (2) and 67C of the Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The offence against him was, however, subsequently compounded on his paying an amount of Rs. 300. Proceedings were, later, initiated against the writ petitioner by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Cannanore under S.67B (2) and 67C of the Act for confiscation of the vehicle. In response to the show cause notice served on him the petitioner filed a detailed explanation stating that neither himself nor the person in charge of the vehicle had - knowledge or even reason to suspect that the passenger concerned was carrying the contraband liquor and that no offence had been committed by the petitioner under the Act so as to render himself liable for action under S.67B. Those contentions were, however, rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated as per his proceedings evidenced by Ext. P2 dated 25-1-1977. Though the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Excise, Trivandrum, that appeal was dismissed as per the order Ext. P3 and a further revision filed before the Board of Revenue was also rejected as per the proceedings of the Board evidenced by Ext. P4. The writ petition was thereafter filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P2, P3 and P4. 4. The learned single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the relevant provisions in the Act and the material facts as disclosed by the records, came to the conclusion that the impugned orders of confiscation passed against the two writ petitioners were illegal and unwarranted. In O. P. No. 2258 of 1978 the learned Judge found that the approach made by the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority was vitiated by an erroneous assumption that in the absence of any rule or law prohibiting the conductor of a stage carriage bus from verifying the contents of suit-case, packets etc. carried by passengers there is a duty cast on him to check and verify such contents and ensure that no contraband articles are contained in any of the items of luggage carried by the passengers. carried by passengers there is a duty cast on him to check and verify such contents and ensure that no contraband articles are contained in any of the items of luggage carried by the passengers. After a detailed advertence to the relevant provisions of the Act the learned Judge held that "to confiscate a conveyance under S.67C of the Act it is necessary that its owner, his agent or the person to whom it is entrusted by him should have a guilty mind (mens rea), though not to the extent of an intention on his part to commit the Abkari offence of carrying contraband goods therein or to abet the same, at least to the extent of knowingly and willingly permitting its user for the carriage of such goods; the onus is on the owner to establish absence of any guilty mind and not on the department to prove its presence". It was further held by the learned single Judge that while the statute requires that the owner, his agent and the person in charge of conveyance should take all necessary precautions against its use for carrying contraband articles, the burden of proof upon the owner is only to establish that himself/his agent/the person in charge of the conveyance had exercised reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. Since it was found that the case had not been approached from the aforesaid correct legal perspective by the authorities who passed the impugned orders, the learned Judge set aside Exts. P6 and P8 orders and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the case afresh after affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to be heard in the matter. 5. O. P. No. 1134 of 1978 subsequently came up for hearing before the same learned Judge. The learned Judge applied to this case the principles laid down by him in the judgment in O. P. No. 2258 of 1978 and held that the order passed against the writ petitioner confiscating his van was totally unwarranted, especially since it had not been found that the petitioner had in any way connived in the carriage of the contraband articles in the van or even had any knowledge about it In the circumstances the learned Judge considered it unnecessary to remit the case for further enquiry and allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned orders evidenced, by Exts. P2, P3 and P4. 6. P2, P3 and P4. 6. The correctness of the aforesaid conclusion reached by the learned single Judge is under challenge in these writ appeals. 7. It is in the exercise of the power conferred by S.67B of the Act that the vehicles in question were ordered to be confiscated S.67B is in the following terms: "67B. Confiscation by Abkari Officers in certain cases. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, where any liquor, intoxicating drug, material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus or any receptacle, package or covering in which such liquor, intoxicating drug, material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus is found or any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying the same is seized and detained under the provisions of this Act; the officer seizing and detaining such property shall, without any unreasonable delay, produce the same before an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette, not being below the rank of an Assistant Excise Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer). (2) Where an authorised officer seizes and detains any property specified in subsection (1) or where any such property is produced before an authorised officer under that sub-section and he is satisfied that an offence under this Act has been committed in respect of or by means of that property and that such property is liable to confiscation under this Act, such authorised officer may, whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the commission of such offence, order confiscation of such property and where such property consists of any receptacle or package, the authorised officer may also order confiscation of all contents thereof. (3) When making an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), the authorised officer may also order that such of the properties to which the order of confiscation relates, which in his opinion cannot be preserved or are not fit for human consumption, be destroyed." The procedure to be followed while taking action under S.67B is prescribed by S.67C which reads: - '67C. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under S.67B. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under S.67B. (1) No order confiscating any property shall be made under S.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 S.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 introxicating 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 bad taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use." On a combined reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.67B it becomes clear that it is only in cases where any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying liquor, intoxicating drug etc. is seized and detained under the provisions of the Act that a power is conferred on the authorised Abkari officer to order confiscation of such animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance. The power of seizure is conferred by S.34 of the Act which is in the following terms: "34. Offenders may be arrested and contraband liquor, vehicles, etc., seized without warrant. (1) Any officer of the Excise Department or the Police Department may arrest without warrant in any public thoroughfare or open piece other than a dwelling house, any person found committing an offence punishable under S.15 C or S.55 or S.57 or S.58. Offenders may be arrested and contraband liquor, vehicles, etc., seized without warrant. (1) Any officer of the Excise Department or the Police Department may arrest without warrant in any public thoroughfare or open piece other than a dwelling house, any person found committing an offence punishable under S.15 C or S.55 or S.57 or S.58. and in any such thoroughfare or public place may (a) seize and detain- (i) any liquor or intoxicating drug; (ii) any material, still, utensil, implement or apparatus; (iii) any receptacle or package or covering; and (iv) any animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; (b) search any person, animal, cart, vessel or other conveyance, package, receptacle or covering upon whom or in or upon which he may have reasonable cause to suspect any such liquor or intoxicating drug to be, or to be concealed. (2) If the officer making an arrest under sub-section (1) is not empowered under S.5A to admit to bail, the person arrested shall forthwith be produced before an officer so empowered." Under clause (a) (iv) of sub-section (1) of this section the seizure and detention of any conveyance can be effected only if the competent officer has reason to believe that an offence punishable under S.15C or S.55 or S.57 or S.58 has been committed and that the conveyance is liable to confiscation under the Act S.55 (a) declares it an offence for any person to import, export, transport, transit or possess liquor or any other intoxicating drug in contravention of the Act or any rule or order made thereunder or of licence or permit obtained under the Act. 8. The scheme of the Act, as disclosed by the provisions, is that a seizure of the conveyance is contemplated and authorised only if the competent officer finds that the conveyance has been 'used' in carrying liquor, intoxicating drug etc. in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It, therefore, becomes necessary for us to consider when a vehicle can be said to be 'used' in carrying contraband liquor, intoxicating drug etc.? In our opinion, a conveyance can be said to be 'used' for carrying the contraband article only if the person, who actually effects such transportation, has at least some degree of minima! It, therefore, becomes necessary for us to consider when a vehicle can be said to be 'used' in carrying contraband liquor, intoxicating drug etc.? In our opinion, a conveyance can be said to be 'used' for carrying the contraband article only if the person, who actually effects such transportation, has at least some degree of minima! control over the operation of the vehicle which may be either by bis having obtained it on loan from its owner or on hire (as in the case of a taxi car or contract carriage or vehicles taken on hire for private use including buses, vans and private carrier vehicles) or other similar arrangement. In all such cases the person effecting the conveyance will be in a position to exercise at least a limited control as to the destination to which the vehicle should be taken or the route along which it should ply etc. In cases of this kind the vehicle will be liable for confiscation under S.67B of the Act on its being found to carry contraband liquor, intoxicating drugs etc. unless the owner, his agent or the person in charge of the conveyance is able to show that he had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. It was submitted by the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellants that in such cases it is not correct to say that proof of mens rea on the part of the owner/agent/person in charge of the conveyance is a prerequisite for attracting liability to confiscation. There is force in the above contention advanced by the learned Advocate-General. 9. The position is, however, entirely different in regard to public passenger vehicles like stage carriages and vans which are authorised to operate scheduled services on the concerned routes on the strength of permits issued by the road transport authorities. These vehicles are used only for conveyance of passengers in general on the specified routes. It would not be correct to say that the vehicle is "used" for carrying any particular item of personal luggage belonging to one of the passengers. The purpose for which the vehicle is used is the operation of a passenger transport service between the two termini specified in the permit. It would not be correct to say that the vehicle is "used" for carrying any particular item of personal luggage belonging to one of the passengers. The purpose for which the vehicle is used is the operation of a passenger transport service between the two termini specified in the permit. The mere fact that any of the passengers travelling in the bus or the van is found to have in his possession some contraband article either concealed on his person or kept in a suitcase, package etc. carried by him will not entitle the excise authorities to regard the the bus or the van as a conveyance"used for carrying" such contraband article. Hence confiscation of a bus or van operating a scheduled passenger transport service on the strength of a permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act is not contemplated or warranted by S.67B and it must ipso facto follow that seizure of such bus or van is not also warranted under S.34 of the Act even if it be found that any of the passengers was carrying any contraband liquor etc. Seizure of such a public transport vehicle while operating a scheduled service on the concerned route and any order confiscating it would necessarily visit the public with very serious inconvenience and we consider that it is not reasonable to think that the legislature would have intended to cause such dislocation of public transport arrangements and serious inconvenience to the public by empowering the seizure and confiscation of public transport vehicles on the mere ground that contraband article was found to be in possession of any of the passengers travelling in such vehicles. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that there is neither authority nor any duty cast by law on the conductor of a stage carriage vehicle to search the articles of luggage belonging to the passengers with a view to find out whether any contraband goods are being carried by them. 10. In the light of the conclusion that we have reached that powers under S.55 & 67B cannot be legally invoked by the excise authorities against stage carriage buses and vans operating public passenger service on the strength of permits granted by the road transport department it automatically follows that the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing the orders impugned in the two writ petitions. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed While doing so we direct that in taking further proceedings against the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 2258 of 1978 in pursuance of the directions contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Cannanore shall have due regard to the legal position explained in the this judgment regarding the non-applicability of S.55 and 67B of the Act in relation to the stage carriage bus operating a scheduled service on a route covered by a permit. 11. The parties will bear their respective costs. Dismissed. Immediately after pronouncement of the judgment the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants in the appeals orally prayed under Art.134A of the Constitution for the grant of certificates under Art.33 (1) to enable the State to carry these matters in appeal before the Supreme Court. We do not, however, consider these to be fit cases for the grant of the certificates asked for since, in our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance on which a pronouncement of the Supreme Court can be said to be needed, is involved. The request for the grant of the certificates will accordingly stand declined. Leave refused.