JUDGMENT : A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. 1. The short issue in this writ petition is regarding the release of seized foreign liquor pending confiscation proceedings. 2. The petitioner, a holder of an FL-3 licence, runs a Three Star classified Hotel at Kumarakom. Based on an inspection, seizure of foreign liquor was effected. The seized liquor was found from a counter functioning at the A/C restaurant outside the Bar Room. A total of 113.25 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) was found from the said counter. The said liquor was obtained by the petitioner by valid documents. The alleged violation against the petitioner was that she displayed the above liquor at the counter of the service desk of the A/C restaurant. However, the petitioner has permission to serve liquor at the desk of the restaurant. 3. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner for violation of licence conditions. The question whether the seized liquor needs to be confiscated or not has to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The said liquor was purchased from an authorised source, i.e., the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. The petitioner has permission to serve liquor at the desk. This is based on the payment of annual rental fee. Rule 13(3D) of Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 permits operation of service desks on payment of annual rent and with specific permission of the Excise Commissioner. However, it also restrains operating counters in areas other than the licensed bar room of the hotel. According to the respondent officials, the petitioner erected a counter parallel to the Bar Hotel under the guise of a service desk in the A/C Restaurant without permission, and started serving liquor outside the service desk by storing liquor at the counter. 4. Perhaps this Court need not examine all other matters in this case for the simple reason that the petitioner's demand is only for the release of the seized liquor after assessing the value of the same. The offence raised against the petitioner is under S.56(b) of the Abkari Act. This offence is related to violation of conditions of permit. Section 67B refers to confiscation by Abkari Officers. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 29(9) of the Abkari Act, the Government made the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. Rule 4A refers to constitution of Disposal Committee. This offence is related to violation of conditions of permit. Section 67B refers to confiscation by Abkari Officers. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 29(9) of the Abkari Act, the Government made the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. Rule 4A refers to constitution of Disposal Committee. Rule 14 therein says that all other confiscated liquours shall be destroyed by the officer referred therein depending upon the nature of quantity of the liquor seized. It is to be noted that under Section 67D of the Abkari Act, if any property is seized and is not liable to be confiscated, it will have to be returned to the owner. A confiscation would arise only if an offence is committed in respect of subject of confiscation. In this case, the offence registered against the petitioner is for violation of conditions of licence. Therefore, it is doubtful if any confiscation can be made with respect to liquor obtained in a legal manner. Anyway, I am leaving this question open for consideration to the authorised officer at the appropriate stage. In the light of Section 67B, no authority can order destruction of liquor till the conclusion of the proceedings of confiscation. In that background, the question that arises is whether the seized liquor can be released or not. There is no law invariably that all confiscated liquor should be destroyed. The reference to 'all other confiscated liquors' in Rule 14 clearly indicates that it is for the Disposal committee to decide whether the confiscated liquor should be destroyed or not. The Disposal Committee can order destruction of the liquor only when it arrives at a finding that the seized liquor cannot be put into any use. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the authorised officer was under the process of taking samples. However, it could not be completed for the reason that this Court passed an order on an inter locutory application filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the correctness of the inventory and sampling have to be done in the presence of the Magistrate. The said submission is recorded. 6. The liquor seized from the petitioner is purchased from a legal source. If, ultimately, it is found that the liquor is liable to be confiscated, no purpose would be served by destroying the same. The said submission is recorded. 6. The liquor seized from the petitioner is purchased from a legal source. If, ultimately, it is found that the liquor is liable to be confiscated, no purpose would be served by destroying the same. On the other hand if it is ordered to be released on payment of value, the State would benefit. Keeping the above interest, it is appropriate to order release of the liquor seized on deposit of value of the same. In the light of the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the competent among the respondents shall, after completion of the process of certification of inventory by the Executive Magistrate and taking samples, release the liquor as ordered by this Court. This exercise shall be completed without any delay. The entire process for release of the liquor shall be completed within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment Appropriation of the amount so deposited would be subject to the final decision in the confiscation proceedings. 7. The writ petition is disposed of as above.