JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for records to Ext P8 notice and quash the same. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the 3rd respondent to release the entire balance amount in the treasury savings bank account TSA 10640 to the petitioner after adjusting Rs.1,10,000/- to the respondents. Ii (a). to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext P10 order. iii. Such other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Short facts for disposal of this writ petition are narrated below: Petitioner was the registered owner of vehicle Tempo Trax bearing No.KL-02D/9143. The above vehicle was involved in Crime No.78/99 of Excise Range Office, Pathanapuram and the 4th respondent seized the vehicle in connection with the above crime. Thereafter the vehicle was produced before the confiscating authority. The petitioner approached the authority for interim custody of the vehicle. The above application for temporary custody of the vehicle was allowed as per Ext.R3(a) order. As per Rule 4(2)(a) of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') the vehicle was valued by the authorised officer and the amount valued by the officer concerned was Rs.1,25,000/-. Accordingly the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as security for temporary custody of the vehicle. Ext.P1 is the details showing that the above market value is deposited in the Treasury Savings Bank Account. Accordingly the vehicle was obtained by the petitioner based on Ext.R3(a) order. 3. The 3rd respondent, in the year 2006, had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in connection with the confiscation proceedings. The petitioner submitted objection and after hearing the petitioner, the 3rd respondent confiscated the vehicle as per order dated 26.03.2007. Ext.R3(b) is the order of confiscation passed by the authority. Thereafter the petitioner surrendered the vehicle before the 4th respondent on 01.08.2013 and a receipt was issued by the 4th respondent after surrendering the said vehicle for and on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Ext.P5 is the receipt. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 29.01.2014 informing her that she shall appear before the 3rd respondent to receive the present market value of the vehicle Rs.15,000/- within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Ext.P5 is the receipt. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 29.01.2014 informing her that she shall appear before the 3rd respondent to receive the present market value of the vehicle Rs.15,000/- within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Ext.P6 is the notice. The petitioner submitted reply to the same, stating that the vehicle was temporarily released after depositing Rs.1,25,000/- and the said amount was deposited in the Treasury Savings Account in the year 1999 and the total amount in the said account comes to about Rs.2,65,000/- as on that date. According to the petitioner, respondents are entitled to get only an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and the balance amount in the account is to be disbursed to the petitioner. In other words, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is not only entitled for Rs.15,000/-, which is the balance amount, but is also entitled to the interest accrued on the amount deposited. Ext.P7 is the reply submitted by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent thereafter issued notice dated 28.03.2014 to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner shall receive the present market value of the vehicle and if not, the said amount will be forfeited. Ext.P8 is the notice. As per Ext.P8, it is stated that the Excise Commissioner took a decision that the petitioner is entitled for only Rs.15,000/- and the rest of the amount shall be forfeited to the government. The petitioner again submitted a reply to the same, stating that the respondents are entitled to only an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and the balance amount is to be given to the petitioner. Ext.P9 is the reply. Thereafter Ext.P10 order is passed by which the confiscating authority forfeited the entire amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the specific provision in the Rules, the confiscating authority is entitled only to the difference between the two market values of the vehicle and it shall be adjusted from the deposit already made. The counsel submitted that the difference of the market value is Rs.1,10,000/-. The counsel submitted that the balance amount with interest accrued as on that date is to be disbursed to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the same is clear from the Rules. 6. The counsel submitted that the difference of the market value is Rs.1,10,000/-. The counsel submitted that the balance amount with interest accrued as on that date is to be disbursed to the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the same is clear from the Rules. 6. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is entitled only an amount of Rs.15,000/-, which is the balance amount. The Government Pleader submitted that the interest portion need not be given to the petitioner. The Government Pleader relied on Rule 4(2)(b) to support her arguments. The Government Pleader also takes me through Rule 4(2)(a) in which it is stated that the amount is deposited in the Treasury Savings Account in favour of the Commissioner of Excise. When the Rule is specific that the petitioner is entitled only to the balance amount after adjusting the difference in two market value from the balance amount in the proper head of account, she is not entitled the interest accrued as on that date. Therefore the Government Pleader submitted that the prayers in the writ petition may not be allowed. The Government Pleader also submitted that the petitioner was directed to appear before the confiscating authority to get the difference amount. But she refused to appear before the authority. Consequently Ext.P10 order is passed confiscating the entire amount. The Government Pleader justified Ext.P10 order by submitting that such an order is passed because the petitioner refused to appear before the authority to accept even the admitted amount. 7. The short point to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled the interest amount that accrued to the amount deposited in the Treasury Savings Account while releasing the vehicle on temporary basis under Rule 4(2)(a). For a better understanding of the case, it is better to extract Rule 4 of the Rules: "4. 7. The short point to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled the interest amount that accrued to the amount deposited in the Treasury Savings Account while releasing the vehicle on temporary basis under Rule 4(2)(a). For a better understanding of the case, it is better to extract Rule 4 of the Rules: "4. Carts, Vessels or other conveyances:- (1)(a) When an authorized officer adjudging a confiscation of cart, vessel or other conveyance under Section 67E or 67F of the Act offers the owner of such property the option of paying in lieu of confiscation, a fine equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance as fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State, and if the owner of such property agrees to accept such option, he shall be required to pay forthwith such sum as may already have been spent towards the safe custody and unkeep of such property, and to deposit such further sum as may appear likely to be required for such purposes until the payment of the fine. (b) A period of fifteen days shall be allowed for the payment of such fine, if the fine is paid within such period, the property shall at once be, released to the owner together with such part of the sum so deposited as may remain unspent on such purposes, and if the fine is not paid within the said period of 15 days, the order of confiscation shall remain in full effect in the same way as if no option of the payment of a fine had been offered. (c) There shall be no appeal against adjudication of an optional fine. (d) An appeal may be preferred against the amount of such fine provided that the fine has already been paid. (c) There shall be no appeal against adjudication of an optional fine. (d) An appeal may be preferred against the amount of such fine provided that the fine has already been paid. (2)(a) The cart, vessel or other conveyance liable to be confiscated under the Act may be released temporarily by the authorized officer to its owner on depositing an amount equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance, fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State in the Treasury Savings Account in favour of the Commissioner of Excise. (b) The cart, vessel or other conveyance so released (temporarily) shall be produced before the Authorized Officer when final order of confiscation is passed by the Competent Authority and communicated to the owner of such property by Registered Post. (3)(a) As and when the owner of the cart, vessel or other conveyance produces the same before the Authorised Officer, he shall reassess the market value of such cart, vessel or other conveyance in the like manner detailed in sub-rule(i). (b) If the reassessed market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance is found to be less than the original market value so fixed at the time of temporary release, the difference between the two market value of the same shall be adjusted from the deposit already made and credited to the proper head of account of the Excise Department and the balance amount due to the owner shall be released to him or in the case of death of the owner, to his legal heirs on production of necessary evidence in support of their claim as the case may be, within three months from the date of death of the owner. (c) If no person has appeared to receive the sum so placed in deposit, it shall be forfeited to Government. Provided that the Authorised Officer concerned shall forfeit the entire deposit made under sub-rule (2) and seize the cart, vessel or other conveyance, as the case may be, if the owner fails to produce before the Authorised Officer the cart, vessel or other conveyance temporarily released to him, within 15 days from the date of communication to produce the same." 8. Rule 4(1)(a) says that when an authorised officer adjudging a confiscation of cart, vessel or other conveyance under section 67E or 67F of the Act offers the owner of such property the option of paying in lieu of confiscation, a fine equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance as fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State, and if the owner of such property agrees to accept such option, he shall be required to pay forthwith such sum as may already have been spent towards the safe custody and unkeep of such property, and to deposit such further sum as may appear likely to be required for such purpose until the payment of the fine. Rule 4(2) (a) says about the release of vehicle on temporary basis subject to the final decision of the confiscation proceedings. As per Rule 4(2)(a), the vehicle which is liable to be confiscated under the Act may be released temporarily by the authorised officer to its owner on depositing an amount equivalent to the market value of the car, vessel or other conveyance, fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of and above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department of the State in the Treasury Savings Account in favour of the Commissioner of Excise. Admittedly the vehicle was released to the petitioner on temporary basis subject to the final decision in the confiscation proceedings as per Rule 4(2)(a). The vehicle was assessed by the statutory authority as per Rule 4(2)(a) and the value was fixed as Rs.1,25,000/- as on that date. The amount was deposited in the Treasury Savings Account as evident by Ext.P1 pass book. The amount was deposited on 15.11.1999. Ext.R3(a) is the proceedings by which the vehicle was released on temporary basis in accordance to Rule 4(2)(a). Subsequently, Ext.R3(b) confiscation order was passed by the competent authority. After Ext.R3(b), the petitioner surrendered the vehicle before the confiscating authority on 01.08.2013. 9. If the vehicle is surrendered, then the next step to be followed is mentioned in Rule 4(3)(a). Ext.R3(a) is the proceedings by which the vehicle was released on temporary basis in accordance to Rule 4(2)(a). Subsequently, Ext.R3(b) confiscation order was passed by the competent authority. After Ext.R3(b), the petitioner surrendered the vehicle before the confiscating authority on 01.08.2013. 9. If the vehicle is surrendered, then the next step to be followed is mentioned in Rule 4(3)(a). As per Rule 4(3)(a), when the owner of the vehicle produced the same before the authorised officer, he shall reassess the market value of such vehicle in the like manner detailed in sub rule (1) of Rule 4. Accordingly, the vehicle was again assessed by the statutory authority as per Rule 4(1). The vehicle was valued and the value was assessed as Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter the confiscating authority issued notice to the petitioner to accept Rs.15,000/- after adjusting Rs.1,10,000/- to the proper head of account of the Excise Department. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled this Rs.15,000/- along with interest accrued for the entire amount deposited while getting the vehicle for temporary custody under Rule 4(2)(a). For that purpose we have to go through Rule 4(3)(b) once again. Rule 4(3)(b) says that if the reassessed market value of the vehicle is found to be less than the original market value so fixed at the time of temporary release, the difference between the two market value of the same shall be adjusted from the deposit already made and credited to the proper head of account of the Excise Department and the balance amount due to the owner shall be released to him or in the case of death of the owner, to his legal heirs on production of necessary evidence in support of their claim as the case may be. Admittedly the confiscating authority offered the balance amount of Rs.15,000/-. But, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to the interest accrued for the entire amount deposited as per Ext.R3(a) proceedings by which he obtained the interim custody of the vehicle. I think there is some force in the argument. 10. A vehicle is released under Rule 4(2)(a) temporarily subject to the final decision in the confiscation proceedings. The deposit mentioned in Rule 4(2)(a) is only to see that the value of the vehicle is secured even if the vehicle is lost subsequently. It is only a security amount. I think there is some force in the argument. 10. A vehicle is released under Rule 4(2)(a) temporarily subject to the final decision in the confiscation proceedings. The deposit mentioned in Rule 4(2)(a) is only to see that the value of the vehicle is secured even if the vehicle is lost subsequently. It is only a security amount. Once the vehicle is produced as per Rule 4(3)(a), the department is only entitled the difference of market value and the vehicle. The confiscating authority is not entitled the interest accrued for the amount deposited under Rule 4(2)(a). Rule 4(2)(a) is only a temporary measure. The deposit of the amount is for the purpose of the confiscating authority as a security and also for the purpose of the petitioner. If the confiscating authority finally found that the vehicle need not be confiscated, the petitioner is entitled the entire amount with interest. But if the confiscation order is passed, the authority can retain only the difference of the market value and the vehicle. The appropriation of the interest, according to me will be an unjust enrichment by the State, which cannot be allowed. Therefore, according to me, the petitioner is entitled the balance amount of the difference between the two market value with the interest accrued for the amount deposited as per Rule 4(2)(a). The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was using the vehicle till it was surrendered and therefore the State is is entitled the interest portion. The Government Pleader submitted that when it is produced, the vehicle is not road worthy and therefore, the State is entitled interest. I cannot agree with the same. As per the Rules, the confiscating authority can confiscate only the value of the vehicle and the vehicle itself. The Rule will not permit the concerned authority to appropriate the interest accrued to the amount deposited. Admittedly there is no specific rule authorising the authority to appropriate the interest accrued for the deposit as per Rule 4(2)(a). But I considered the corresponding section in Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Section 18-I of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act is extracted hereunder: “Section 18-I. Recovery of amount due to the State Government. Admittedly there is no specific rule authorising the authority to appropriate the interest accrued for the deposit as per Rule 4(2)(a). But I considered the corresponding section in Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Section 18-I of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act is extracted hereunder: “Section 18-I. Recovery of amount due to the State Government. — (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, any amount due to the State Government under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder along with interest, at such rate as may be specified by the State Government,-- (a) by deducting the amount due with interest from any money owing to the person which may be in the hands or under the control or disposal of any officer of the State Government; or (b) by recovering the amount due with interest by attachment and sale of excisable articles belonging to the person from whom such amount is due. (2) If the amount due to the State Government with interest cannot be deducted or recovered in the manner provided for in sub-section (1) or the money so deducted or recovered is not sufficient to satisfy the amount and interest so due, the officer empowered may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount with interest due or, as the case may be, the balance of the amount due from the person, and send it to the Collector of the district in which such person resides or carries on business and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall recover the amount with interest specified therein as an arrear of land revenue from the said person. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force and subject to the prior claim, if any, of the State Government in respect of land revenue, any amount due to the State Government with interest shall be a first charge upon the property or interest in the property of the person from whom the amount is due.” 11. From the above section, it is clear that the above statute specifically authorise to deduct interest also from any money owing to the person which may be in the hands or under the control or disposal of any officer of the State Government. Admittedly there is no such corresponding provision in the Kerala Abkari Act or in the Rules. In such circumstances, without the backing of a statute, the respondents cannot retain the interest amount. It may amount to unjust enrichment. The Apex Court in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs [2005 AIR SC 1518] it is observed thus: “31. Stated simply, "unjust enrichment" means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. "Unjust enrichment" occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else. 32. The doctrine of "unjust enrichment", therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. 33. The juristic basis of the obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or the doctrine of restitution.” 12. In Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. [1994 AIR SC 860], it is held as follows: “98. The principle of unjust enrichment proceeds on the basis that it would be unjust to allow one person to retain a benefit received at the expense of another person. It provides the theoretical foundation for the law governing restitution. The principle has, however, its critics as well as its supporters. In the words of Loard Diplok: ".... there is no general doctrine of unjust enrichment in English law. What it does is to provide specific remedies in particular cases of what might be classed as unjust enrichment in a legal system that is based upon civil law.” 13. In Indian Council For Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India and Others [2011 SCC 8161] it is held as follows: “151. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: "Unjust enrichment---A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” See Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edn. (Bryan A. Garner) at p. 1573. Unjust enrichment has been defined as: "Unjust enrichment---A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.” See Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edn. (Bryan A. Garner) at p. 1573. A claim for unjust enrichment arises where there has been an "unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.” 152. "Unjust enrichment" has been defined by the court as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another, or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.” 14. The Legal Maxim “Nemo Debet Locupletari ex Aliena Jactura” means no one should be enriched by another's loss. In this case, without any statutory backing, the respondents have no authority to keep the interest accrued for the amount deposited as per Rule 4(2)(a). In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled the interest accrued along with the balance amount. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Exts.P8 and P10 are quashed. 2. The 3rd respondent is directed to release the entire balance amount in the Treasury Savings Bank Account TSA 10640 to the petitioner after retaining the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the respondents. 3. The above amount should be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.