Patna High Court
Gyanendra MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- MOHIT KUMAR SHAHP B BAJANTHRIALOK KUMAR PANDEYS B P SINGH
Holding
The petition is premature and not maintainable because no demand was made under Rule 12A; therefore, the writ petition is disposed of.
Summary
The petitioner, Gyanendra Mishra, filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the Excise Commissioner’s order that confiscated his Maruti Suzuki Brezza and directing the release of the vehicle. He alleged that the confiscation order was passed without proper consideration of facts. The petition relied on Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, claiming that no demand had been made before the competent authority. The Court held that, in the absence of a demand under Rule 12A, the writ petition for mandamus was premature and not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the petitioner to file an application under Rule 12A for a speaking order, and noting that an appeal is available if the confiscation attains finality.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition for certiorari and mandamus is maintainable when no demand has been made under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
- Whether the order of confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle can be quashed in the absence of such a demand.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- certiorari
- mandamus
- excise confiscation
- Rule 12A
- premature petition
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11894 of 2025
======================================================
Gyanendra Mishra Son of Chandrabhushan Mishra, Resident of Village- Flat
No. 22, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaan Baatar Marg, nearby Palam Mode,
Delhi Cantt., P.O. Delhi Cantt, District- South West Delhi- 110010.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration and Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Registration and Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Confiscating Authority, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
4. The Superintendent of Exicse Prohibition Department, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
5. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur.
6. The Officer-In-Charge, P.S. Excise and Prohibition Department, District-
Kaimur, Bhabhua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Divit Vinod AC to SC-26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 05-08-2025
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following relief(s):-
“I. To issue writ/ writs, order/orders,
direction/ directions including a writ in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the order dated
29.04.2025 passed in Excise Appeal Case no.
46/2025 arising out of Excise Confiscation Case
no. 33/2025 by learned Excise Commissioner,
Patna (as contained in Annexure-P/6) whereby
and whereunder the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Brezza
Patna High Court CWJC No.11894 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
2/3
Car bearing Registration No. HR-98A-7932,
Chassis No. MA3NYFJISMF790319 and Engine
no. K15BN1206006 of the petitioner has been
dismissed and affirmed the order dated
03.03.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur, it is further
quashed the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in
Excise Confisction Case no. 33/2025 arising out
of Excise case no. 811/2024 dated 19.10.2024 by
learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua,
Kaimur whereby learned S.D.M., Bhabhua,
Kaimur has been confiscated the said vehicle
Maruti Suzuki Brezza Car without considering the
facts and circumstances of the case of the
petitioner in proper perspectives (as contained in
Annexure-P/4).
II. To issue a writ/ writs, order/ orders,
direction/directions, including a writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the Respondents to release
the said vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-98A-
7932 in favour of the petitioner accordance with
law.
III. For granting any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner may be found
entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case.”
2. In support of aforementioned relief there is no
demand before the competent authority in particularly under Rule
12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with
amended Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11894 of 2025 dt.05-08-2025
3/3
3. In the absence of demand before the competent
authority, the present Writ petition for writ of mandamus is not
maintainable or it is pre-mature. Accordingly, the present Writ
petition stands disposed of as pre-mature.
4. Disposal of the present petition would not be a hurdle
for the petitioner to invoke remedy under Rule 12A of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 including amended provisions
in the year 2022 and 2023. If such application is submitted in the
prescribed form before the competent authority, the competent
authority shall pass speaking order within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of such application.
5. If the confiscation of the vehicle has attained finality,
in that event, petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the
appropriate authority.
6. With the above observation, the present petition
stands disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.08.2025
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…