JUDGMENT : The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 notice-cum-order dated 23.05.2023 and Ext.P3 notice-cum-order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent-Deputy Excise Commissioner. The petitioner states that he was an accused in Crime No.350/2021 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range. The petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 10 and 13 read with 63 of the Abkari Act, 1077. It was alleged that the petitioner transported 12 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in his Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KL-01H-1277 on 04.12.2021. 2. When IMFL was seized, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 show-cause notice dated 09.12.2021. The vehicle was later released to the petitioner granting interim custody on deposit of Rs.70,000/- being the market value then fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice informing that his application for release of the vehicle permanently to him was rejected by the 2nd respondent-Excise Commissioner. The petitioner was required to produce the vehicle before the 3rd respondent to complete confiscation proceedings. 3. The petitioner was served with notice-cum-order dated 06.02.2024 of the 2nd respondent intimating that the 2nd respondent has decided not to release the vehicle permanently to the petitioner. The reason advanced in Ext.P3 was that the petitioner is accused in several other crimes. The petitioner states that those crimes alleged against the petitioner were not of serious nature and in almost all the crimes, the petitioner has been acquitted after trial. 4. The petitioner states that he is an agriculturist. The vehicle has been used to transport seeds, fertilisers, etc. and also to transport agricultural produces. The petitioner has already paid market value of the vehicle at the time of grant of interim custody to the petitioner. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the respondents accede to the request of the petitioner to release the vehicle permanently to him, appropriating the market value already deposited. 5. The Government Pleader resisted the writ petition and filed a statement on behalf of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner was arrested by the Excise Inspector on 04.12.2021 while transporting 12 litres of IMFL. A case was registered as CR No.350/2021 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range. The 3rd respondent initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 67(B) of the Abkari Act and Ext.P1 notice dated 09.12.2021 was issued to the petitioner. 6. The 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner was arrested by the Excise Inspector on 04.12.2021 while transporting 12 litres of IMFL. A case was registered as CR No.350/2021 of Sulthan Bathery Excise Range. The 3rd respondent initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 67(B) of the Abkari Act and Ext.P1 notice dated 09.12.2021 was issued to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner did not submit any reply to Ext.P1. However, the petitioner sought for temporary release of the vehicle. The Mechanical Engineer of Excise Department valued the vehicle at Rs.70,000/-. On the petitioner depositing Rs.70,000/-, the vehicle was temporarily released to him. 7. In the confiscation proceedings, the 3rd respondent found that the vehicle was used for transportation of liquor with the full knowledge of the petitioner and hence Annexure- R3(a) order was passed on 29.07.2022 confiscating the vehicle. The confiscation of vehicle was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal against confiscation. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal and ordered to release the vehicle permanently to the registered owner by forfeiting the security deposit of Rs.70,000/- after getting approval of the 2nd respondent-Excise Commissioner. The petitioner filed an application dated 04.11.2022 for permanent release of the vehicle. The said application was forwarded to the 2nd respondent-Excise Commissioner. 8. The 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and was involved in 22 crimes. 11 cases in Police Department and 11 Abkari cases, were registered against the petitioner. Out of the 11 cases, the petitioner was convicted with imprisonment and fine in three cases and was convicted with fine only, in five cases. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent- Excise Commissioner decided not to release the vehicle permanently to the petitioner to prevent further crimes. The petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle to complete the confiscation proceedings. 9. The 3rd respondent stated that as per the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996, a confiscated vehicle shall be produced before the authorised officer and its value should be reassessed. If the reassessed market value is less than the original market value fixed at the time of temporary release, the difference between two market value shall be adjusted from the TSA deposit. Order of the Excise Commissioner under Section 67F(1) shall be final. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 10. If the reassessed market value is less than the original market value fixed at the time of temporary release, the difference between two market value shall be adjusted from the TSA deposit. Order of the Excise Commissioner under Section 67F(1) shall be final. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Sreejith V.S. representing the respondents. 11. The petitioner's vehicle was seized on 04.12.2021 alleging involvement in offence punishable under Sections 10 and 13 read with Section 63 of the Abkari Act, 1077. The petitioner was thereupon issued Ext.P1 notice dated 09.12.2021 seeking to show-cause why the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act. The respondents assessed the market value of the vehicle Mahindra Jeep at Rs.70,000/-. The petitioner submitted application for temporary release of the vehicle to him. The petitioner deposited Rs.70,000/-. 12. The petitioner was later issued with Ext.P2 notice dated 23.05.2023 informing the petitioner that his application for release of the vehicle permanently is rejected. The petitioner again submitted an application dated 08.06.2023 to the Excise Commissioner for permanent release of the vehicle. Ext.P3 notice dated 06.02.2024 was given to the petitioner stating that it has been decided not to release the vehicle to the petitioner in view of involvement of the petitioner in many criminal cases. 13. Section 67B of the Abkari Act, 1077 provides for confiscation by Abkari officers in certain cases. The Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 provides for temporary and permanent release of cart, vessel or other conveyance confiscated. 13. Section 67B of the Abkari Act, 1077 provides for confiscation by Abkari officers in certain cases. The Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 provides for temporary and permanent release of cart, vessel or other conveyance confiscated. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996 reads as follows:- 4: Carts, vessels or other conveyances – (1) (a) 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 upkeep 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 authorised 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 Authorised 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 values 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. 14. 14. Rule 4(2)(a) provides for temporary release of vehicles. Rule 2(a) provides that a cart, vessel or other conveyance liable to be confiscated may be released temporarily by the authorised 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. Sub-Rule 2(b) provides that the cart, vessel or other conveyance so temporarily released shall be produced before the authorised officer when final order of confiscation is passed by the competent authority and communicated to the owner of such property. As and when the owner produces the same before the authorised officer, he shall reassess the market value. If the reassessed market value is found to be less than the original market value fixed at the time of temporary release, the difference between the two market value shall be adjusted from the deposit already made and the balance amount due to the owner shall be released to him. 15. In the case of the petitioner, the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department assessed the market value of the Mahindra Jeep at Rs.70,000/- and the vehicle was temporarily released to the petitioner. Subsequently, confiscation order was passed as per Annexure-R3(a) proceedings dated 29.07.2022. 16. Going by Rule 4 of the Rules, 1996, the authorised officer adjudging confiscation can offer the owner the option of paying in view of confiscation, a fine equivalent to the market value of the cart, vessel or other conveyance 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 upkeep 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. 17. The question then is whether owner of a vehicle seized by the Excise Officials is entitled as of right to exercise option for temporary or permanent release of the vehicle. Section 53B of the Abkari Act gives jurisdiction to Courts on articles seized. 17. The question then is whether owner of a vehicle seized by the Excise Officials is entitled as of right to exercise option for temporary or permanent release of the vehicle. Section 53B of the Abkari Act gives jurisdiction to Courts on articles seized. As per Section 53B, whenever any vehicle used for committing any offence is seized or detained, and if any courts finds that it shall be released temporarily, it shall do so with direction to execute sufficient bond by way of cash security equivalent to the market value of such vehicle, to be fixed by the Mechanical Engineer of the Excise Department or any Mechanical Engineer of or above the rank of an Assistant Executive Engineer of the State Public Works Department, for production of such vehicle or conveyance on demand before the court or the authorised officer. Section 53B also states that such order shall not prevent the authorised officer from taking or continuing penal action under Section 67B. 18. The penalties in respect of Abkari offences are governed by Chapter IX of the Abkari Act. Confiscation by Abkari officers is governed by Section 67B which reads as follows: 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 sub-section (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. 19. Section 67C provides for issue of show-cause notice before confiscation under Section 67B. Section 67C reads as follows: 67C. Issue of show cause notice before confiscation under section 67B – (1) No order confiscating any property shall be made under section 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 section 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 intoxicating 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 had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. 20. Though Sections 67B and 67C deal with confiscation of articles, the provisions do not contemplate temporary or permanent release of the articles seized. 20. Though Sections 67B and 67C deal with confiscation of articles, the provisions do not contemplate temporary or permanent release of the articles seized. Section 53B gives power of temporary release of articles only to jurisdictional courts. 21. The powers of authorised officers to release vehicles or other articles are contained in Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996. 22. A Division Bench of this Court considered the impact of Section 53B and Rule 4, in the judgment in Nikhil T.M. v. The Deputy Excise Commissioner and others [ 2016 (4) KLT 372 ]. The Division Bench held that sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Kerala Abkari (Disposal of Confiscated Articles) Rules, 1996 deals with the situation after passing an order of confiscation, whereas sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 mainly deals with the stages during pendency of the confiscation proceedings. Sub-rule (1)(a) of Rule 4 refers to a situation where the authorised officer adjudging confiscation of the vehicle offers the owner of such property, the option of paying a fine equivalent to the market value of the vehicle in lieu of confiscation. If such offer of option is accepted by the owner of the vehicle, and the cash equivalent is deposited along with such other amounts spent towards safe custody and upkeep of the vehicle till payment of fine is effected, he shall be given the custody of the vehicle. 23. The Division Bench further held that by virtue of sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 4, the owner of the vehicle is to be given 15 days time to satisfy the fine and if it is paid within the said period, the vehicle is to be released. If the fine is not paid within 15 days, the order of confiscation shall remain with full effect, as if no option for payment of fine had been offered. The judgment in Nikhil T. M. (supra) does not in any manner indicate that owner of the vehicle has a right to get an option for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation. 24. Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1996 will come to play only when the authorised officer adjudging confiscation 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 article. 24. Rule 4(1) of the Rules, 1996 will come to play only when the authorised officer adjudging confiscation 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 article. Neither the Act nor the Rules requires that such an offer is necessarily to be given in all cases. Therefore, the authorised officers under the Act have a discretion in the matter of offering option of paying fine, in lieu of confiscation. 25. In the case of the petitioner, though the petitioner has been given temporary custody of the vehicle, the authorised officer has not made any offer for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, for grant of permanent custody. 26. The Excise Commissioner in Ext.P3 noted that there are a number of cases against the petitioner relating to Abkari and other offences committed in Wayanad District and therefore the Excise Commissioner decided not to release the vehicle permanently to the petitioner. The petitioner has no legal right to get the vehicle released on a permanent basis. The Excise Commissioner has exercised his discretion on the basis of relevant materials as can be seen from Ext.P3. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P2 or Ext.P3. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is dismissed.