Patna High Court
Biteshwar Nath PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to liberty to file an appeal under section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and that the auction of the vehicle must be stayed pending the appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Biteshwar Nath Pandey, challenged an order dated 25‑10‑2025 of the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate, Kaimur, which directed the confiscation and auction of his Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The order was based on sections 30(a), 32(1)(3) and 41(i)(ii) of the Act, alleging the vehicle belonged to an unknown absconder in a prohibition case. The petitioner sought liberty to file an appeal under section 92 of the same Act and requested a protective stay on the auction. The State argued that the auction had not yet occurred and did not oppose the filing of an appeal. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to appeal within two weeks, ordered that the appellate authority consider the appeal on merits without regard to limitation, and stayed any auction of the vehicle pending the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on these terms.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to file an appeal under section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the confiscation order.
- Whether a stay on the auction of the confiscated vehicle should be granted pending the appeal.
- Whether the limitation period can be condoned for the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32(1)(3), 41(i)(ii), 92
Subjects
- writ petition
- vehicle confiscation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- section 92 appeal
- stay of auction
- limitation condonation
- excise law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1738 of 2026
======================================================
Biteshwar Nath Pandey, s/o Late Gorakh Nath Pandey, R/o Old Police Line,
M.P. Bagh Ara, P.S.-Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary (Liquor Prohibition and Excise), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
5. The Excise, Superintendent, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
6. The S.H.O. Excise P.S., Kaimur, Bhabhua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
2 23-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed challenging
the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the learned court of
Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua in
Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 361 of 2025 arising out
of Kaimur (Prohibition) Case No. 547 of 2025 dated
01.09.2025, registered under Sections 30 (a), 32(1) (3) and 41
(i) (ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred as to as “the Act, 2016”) against unknown absconder
and unknown owner of the vehicle in question, whereby and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
whereunder Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle of the petitioner
bearing Registration No. BR01PJ 2359, Chassis No.
MA1YU2HHUJ6B15320 and Engine No. HHJ-4B23427 has
been directed to be confiscated and it has also been directed that
the said vehicle be auctioned sold.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the
aforesaid order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the learned
Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in Excise
(Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 361 of 2025 arising out of
Kaimur (Prohibition) Case No. 547 of 2025 by filing
appropriate appeal under Section 92 of the Act, 2016, however
submits that in the meantime some protection be granted.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-
State has submitted that the auction of the vehicle in question
has not yet taken place as per the oral instructions received by
him and he is not averse to the idea of the petitioner filing
appropriate appeal against the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2025.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate appeal
under Section 92 of the Act, 2016 against the aforesaid order
dated 25.10.2025 passed by the learned court of the Collector-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1738 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua and in case such an
appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the
appellate authority shall consider the same on merits, without
being impeded by the issue of limitation and pass a reasoned
and a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of
four weeks, thereafter.
5. It is needless to state that in case appropriate appeal
is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the respondent
authorities shall not auction sale the vehicle in question till a
final decision is taken in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner,
in case the vehicle in question has not already stood auctioned.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/alok
U
Checking your session…