Prayagadhwaj Yadav @ PrayagversusThe State of Bihar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1800 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Prayagadhwaj Yadav @ Prayag S/o Raj Kishor Yadav, R/o Village House No.
     48, Barwan Bazar, PO Sekhwaniya, PS Kasiya, Distt Kushinagar, UP. Present
     Address- A-7/C3, IIT Delhi, Hauzkhas, PS - Kisangarh, PO - IIT, District -
     South Delhi, New Delhi 110016.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
3.   The Superintendent of Excise Department, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
4.   The Officer In-Charge, Durgawati Excise Police Station, Bhabhua, District
     Kaimur.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Abhigyan Kumar, Adv.
                                  Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Adv. (appearing virtually)
     For the State          :     Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)


      Date : 30-03-2026

               Heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, who is

      appearing through video conferencing and the Ld. Counsel for

      the State.

      2.       The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the

      order dated 1.7.2025, passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional

      Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur) in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation)
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           2/20




         Case No. 24/2025, whereby and whereunder the vehicle in

         question i.e. the one bearing Registration No. UP57BH7128,

         Chassis      No.    MALFB81BLNM386671          and   Engine    No.

         G4LANM304200 has been confiscated and directed to be

         auction sold in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/24

         dated 21.6.2024, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar

         Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter

         referred to as the “Amendment Act, 2018”) on account of

         recovery of 350.250 liters of illicit liquor from the said vehicle,

         i.e white colour Hyundai Company Venue Car.

         3.      The brief facts of the case, as per the complaint lodged by

         the Sub-Inspector          of Police, Durgawati Police Station

         (hereinafter referred to as “the informant”) with the Inspector of

         Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Durgawati Police Station is that

         on 21.6.2024 at about 9:00 hours he received secret information,

         while he was at the police station, to the effect that on the road

         towards the northern side of village Khuthan, one white colour

         Hyundai Company Venue Car is parked in which illicit liquor

         has been kept. The informant along with the police force had

         then proceeded to the said place of occurrence by a Government

         vehicle and upon reaching the said place, he found that one

         white colour Hyundai Company Venue Car was standing on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           3/20




         road and all the four doors of the said car were closed.

         Thereafter, in presence of two police personnel, search of the

         said vehicle was made and 350.250 liters of illicit liquor was

         recovered from the said vehicle. In fact, from the said car, a

         copy of registration certificate of the said car was also recovered

         in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned as the owner

         of the said vehicle along with his address. Thereafter, the said

         car along with the illicit liquor was seized and the seizure list

         was prepared, whereupon the aforesaid FIR bearing Durgawati

         P.S. Case No. 169/24 was registered.

         4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is connected

         online by means of video conferencing facility, has submitted

         that the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid vehicle in

         question on loan and he had been paying monthly EMI of Rs.

         15,758/- since 01.12.2022, which has finally been paid and

         settled on 01.11.2025. It is submitted that in order to meet out

         the financial burden of EMI, the petitioner started using Zoom

         Car Application for the purposes of renting out his car and prior

         to the said incident, he had rented out his car twice. On the

         present occasion, one Mr. Farukdin had approached through

         Zoom Car Application for taking the vehicle in question on rent,

         whereafter the petitioner had given the vehicle in question to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           4/20




         said Mr. Farukdin, after taking his Aadhar card, PAN card, photo

         copy of the driving license etc. and entering into a rental

         agreement dated 18.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner got to

         know that his car has been seized in connection with the

         aforesaid Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/24 on account of

         recovery of illicit liquor from the said car.

         5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

         the petitioner had called Mr. Farukdin on 22.6.2024 to know

         about the status of his location and time of returning the car,

         however on account of the said Mr. Farukdin having

         misbehaved with the petitioner and not returned the car, the

         petitioner had approached the police station- Kishangarh, Delhi

         to lodge a complaint case against Mr. Farukdin on 22.6.2024

         pertaining to the customer not returning his car, however the

         petitioner was told by the police personnel at the police station-

         Kishangar, Delhi that his car has been seized in connection with

         Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/2024.

         6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted

         that nobody was apprehended from the place of occurrence from

         where the car was seized, hence the same casts a doubt

         regarding the process of seizure and the seizure memo does not

         inspire any confidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           5/20




         has tried to impress upon this Court that though the petitioner

         had approached the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

         Mohania (Kaimur) for release of his vehicle in question,

         however the same has been denied in a mechanical manner by

         the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, however the petitioner

         does not intend to avail the alternative remedy available to him

         by way of challenging the said order dated 1.7.2025, by filing an

         appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise

         Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2016”), inasmuch

         as the said remedy is not efficacious. Nonetheless, reliance has

         been placed on a judgment dated 16.5.2019, passed in CWJC

         No. 7612 of 2019 (Rajesh Giri vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.),

         as has been averred in paragraph no. 19 of the writ petition, to

         contend that in similar circumstances, the High Court has

         directed to release the seized vehicle. A bare perusal of the said

         judgment dated 16.5.2019 would show that a coordinate Bench

         of this Hon’ble Court had directed for release of the vehicle in

         question firstly on account of recovery of meager quantity of

         540 ml Indian made foreign liquor and secondly subject to the

         writ petitioner furnishing two sureties (one local), to the extent

         of the value of the vehicle as indicated in the Insurance

         document. However, in the present case the learned counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           6/20




         the petitioner has neither shown his willingness to adhere to

         appropriate conditions to be imposed for release of the seized

         vehicle nor any argument has been advanced by him to the said

         effect.

         7.        This Court upon having put a query to the learned counsel

         for the petitioner to the effect as to whether the petitioner would

         choose to avail the alternative remedy by way of preferring an

         Appeal, as provided for under Section 92 of the Act, 2016, in

         which case this Court would stay the auction of the vehicle in

         question, the answer is in the negative and it is submitted that

         orders be passed on merits.

         8.        Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has

         submitted, by referring to the counter affidavit filed in the

         present case that the veracity of the story, as propounded by the

         petitioner in the writ petition is yet to be ascertained and the

         entire events do not inspire confidence, inasmuch as though the

         so-called rental agreement, pertaining to the car in question is

         dated 18.1.2024 and the said car was seized by the police on

         21.6.2024 on account of recovery of 350.250 liters of illicit

         liquor, leading to lodging of Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/2024,

         however the petitioner is stated to have approached the police

         station- Kishangarh, Delhi to lodge a complaint case against Mr.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           7/20




         Farukdin on 22.6.2024, where he was told by the police

         personnel that his car has been seized in connection with

         Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/2024, nonetheless no FIR appears

         to have been registered. It is further submitted that it is not in

         dispute that 350.250 liters of illicit foreign liquor has been

         recovered from the vehicle in question and the petitioner is

         admittedly the registered owner of the said vehicle in question.

         9.      The learned counsel for the Respondents has next referred

         to Section 47 of the Act, 2016 to submit that it is not necessary

         for the owner of the vehicle in question to be present at the

         place of occurrence, however by virtue of Section 56 of the

         Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 (hereinafter

         referred to as the “Amendment Act, 2022”), whenever an

         offence punishable under the Act, 2016/Amendment Act, 2018/

         Amendment Act, 2022 is committed, the Collector or an officer

         authorized by him may confiscate such items based on the

         report of the investigating officer and such items also includes

         vehicle used for transporting illicit liquor. Thus, it is submitted

         that since illicit liquor has been recovered from the vehicle in

         question, the same has been seized by the police in connection

         with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/2024, whereafter the vehicle

         in question has also been confiscated by the impugned order
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           8/20




         dated 01.07.2025, passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional

         Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur) in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation)

         Case No. 24/2025, in view of the provisions contained in Rule

         12A(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)

         Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment Rules,

         2022”), which is reproduced herein below:-

                  “12A(3). Notwithstanding above, if on a report by police
                  officer or excise officer, the Collector or the officer
                  authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle
                  or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he shall
                  proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said vehicle
                  or conveyance and its subsequent auction/disposal.”

         10.     It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for the

         Respondents that since huge quantity of illicit liquor to the tune

         of 350.250 liters has been recovered in the present case from the

         vehicle in question, the Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohania

         (Kaimur) while passing the impugned order dated 01.07.2025

         has rightly come to the conclusion that it would not be in public

         interest to release the vehicle in question, hence the vehicle in

         question has been confiscated and directed to be auction sold. It

         is however, submitted that the petitioner can file an appeal under

         Section 92 of the Act, 2016 against the order dated 01.07.2025,

         passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohania
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                           9/20




         (Kaimur) in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 24/2025,

         where all the factual issues being raised by the petitioner in the

         present writ petition, regarding rental agreement etc. can be

         gone into and if so required, evidence can also be adduced by

         the petitioner and taken into account, however disputed question

         of facts cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article

         226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the instant remedy being

         availed by the petitioner is not an efficacious remedy and the

         present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of the

         petitioner having not availed the efficacious, statutory and

         alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 92 of the Act,

         2016.

         11.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

         gone through the materials on record from which it is apparent

         that it is not in dispute that the aforesaid vehicle in question was

         seized in connection with Durgawati P.S. Case No. 169/2024 on

         account of recovery of 350.250 liters of illicit liquor from the

         said car. At this juncture we deem it appropriate to refer to

         Section 30(a), 56 and 58 of the Amendment Act, 2018/

         Amendment Act, 2022, which are reproduced herein below:-

                  “30- Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export,
                  transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of
                  any intoxicant or liquor-
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          10/20




                  Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or
                  of any rule, regulation, order made, notification issued
                  there under, or without a valid license, permit or pass
                  issued under this Act, or in breach of any condition of
                  any license, permit or pass renewed or authorisation
                  granted thereunder -
                     (a). Manufactures, possesses, buys, sells, distributes,
                     collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports,
                     removes or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor, hemp;
                     or……………………
                  shall be punishable with imprisonment for the term
                  which may extend to life and with fine which may extend
                  to ten lakh rupees. Provided that the punishment:
                  (a) For the first offence shall not be less than five years
                  imprisonment and fine of not less than one lakh rupees,
                  and
                  (b) For the second and subsequent offences shall not be
                  less than ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of not
                  less than five lakh rupees."
                  56. Confiscation of Seized Items.
                  (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 57B,
                  whenever an offence punishable under this Act, is
                  committed, the Collector or an officer authorized by him
                  may confiscate such items based on the report of the
                  investigating officer.
                  (2) Such items may include
                     (i) any premises or part thereof;
                     (ii) any animal, vehicle, vessel or conveyance;
                     (iii) any liquor or intoxicant;
                     (iv) any other item having bearing with the case;
                  Provided, where things as mentioned in Section 57 are to
                  be destroyed, then the Collector or an officer authorized
                  by him need not confiscate the same before their
                  destruction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          11/20




                  (3) The State Government may issue necessary direction,
                  guidelines, regulations and instructions with respect to
                  the mode and manner of search, seizure, destruction and
                  confiscation.
                  58. Confiscation by District Collector-
                  (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
                  any other law for the time being in force, where anything
                  liable for confiscation under this Act is seized or
                  detained under the provisions of this Act, the officer
                  seizing and detaining such property shall, without any
                  reasonable delay submit a report to the District
                  Collector who has jurisdiction over the said area;
                  (2). On receipt of the report under sub-section (1), the
                  District Collector if satisfied that an offence under this
                  Act has been committed, may, whether or not prosecution
                  is instituted for the commission of such an offence and
                  whether or not a case is pending before any court, order
                  confiscation of such property:
                  (3). The Collector shall, before passing an order under
                  sub-section (2), give a reasonable opportunity to the
                  person concerned, of being heard:
                  (4). While making an order of confiscation under sub-
                  section (2), the District Collector may also order that
                  such of the properties which the order of confiscation
                  relates, which in his opinion cannot be preserved or are
                  not fit for human consumption, be destroyed. Whenever
                  any confiscated article has to be destroyed in conformity
                  with these provisions, it shall be destroyed in the
                  presence of an Executive Magistrate or officer ordering
                  the confiscation or forfeiture, as the case may be, or in
                  the presence of the Excise Officer not below the rank of a
                  Sub-Inspector;
                  (5). While making an order of confiscation under sub-
                  section (2), if the District Collector is of the opinion that
                  it is expedient in the public interest to do so, he may
                  order the said property or any part thereof to be sold by
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          12/20




                  public auction or dispose of departmentally and
                  proceeds deposited with the State Government;
                  (6). The District Collector shall submit a full report of
                  all particulars of confiscation to the Commissioner of
                  Excise within one month of such confiscation.”
         12.     Now coming back to the present case, we find that

         admittedly 350.250 liters of illicit liquor has been recovered

         from the vehicle in question, hence prima facie it cannot be said

         that no offence is made out under the provisions contained in

         Section 30(a) of the Amendment Act, 2018, inasmuch as illicit

         liquor was being transported in the said vehicle. Thus, as per the

         provision contained under Section 56 of the Amendment Act,

         2022, whenever an offence punishable under the Amendment

         Act, 2018 is committed, the Collector or an officer authorized

         by him can confiscate any premises or part thereof, any animal,

         vehicle, vessel or conveyance, any liquor or intoxicant and any

         other item having bearing with the case. Now, the issue which

         arises for consideration is as to whether the vehicle in question

         is liable to be released or not. In this connection, we may

         gainfully reproduce Section 57B of the Amendment Act, 2022

         herein below:-

                  “57B. Things or premises liable to be released upon
                  penalty-
                  (1). Any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used
                  for committing any offence punishable under this Act
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          13/20




                  that has been seized by any police Officer or Excise
                  Officer may be released by the Collector upon payment
                  of such penalty as may be notified by the State
                  Government.
                  (2). Any premises or part thereof used for committing
                  any offence punishable under this Act that has been
                  seized by any police Officer or Excise Officer may be
                  released by the Collector upon payment of such penalty
                  as may be notified by the State Government.
                  (3). If the person concerned does not pay the penalty,
                  then the Collector shall proceed to confiscate the said
                  animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and premises
                  as per Section-58.”
                 It would also be relevant to reproduce Rule 12A and Rule

         13A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules,

         2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2021”) as amended

         upto date, herein below:-

                  “12A. Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. on
                  Payment of Penalty-
                  (1). If any vehicles, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has
                  been seized by any police or excise officer under the Act.
                  then in terms of Section 57B (1) of the Act, the Collector
                  or an officer authorized by him upon receipt of an
                  application in Form IV by the owner of the said
                  conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said
                  conveyance or vehicle upon payment of such penalty as
                  may be ordered by the Collector or the officer
                  authorized by him.
                  Provided, where it is not possible to ascertain the owner
                  of the vehicle or the owner is not coming to claim the
                  vehicle, the Collector or the officer authorized by him,
                  after waiting for 15 days from the date of seizure, shall
                  proceed to confiscate and auction the vehicle as per the
                  provisions of the Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          14/20




                  (2). The amount of penalty shall be as decided by the
                  Collector or the Officer authorized by him. While
                  imposing the penalty, he shall have due regard to the
                  quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the
                  vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of the
                  vehicle. In no case, the penalty should be less than 10%
                  of the insured value of the vehicle and more than Rs. 5
                  lakhs. The insured value is the value of the vehicle as
                  assessed by the insurance company. Where, the insured
                  value is not available or the Collector or the Officer
                  authorized by him has reason to believe that the vehicle
                  is undervalued, he shall get the valuation done by the
                  District Transport Officer.
                  In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond 15 days
                  from the date of seizure and if during this period, the
                  accused/owner does not pay up the penalty, he shall
                  proceed with the confiscation/auction.
                  (3). Notwithstanding above, if on a report by police
                  officer or excise officer, the Collector or the officer
                  authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle
                  or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he
                  shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said
                  vehicle    or conveyance        and its       subsequent
                  auction/disposal.
                  (4). Where the conveyance is such that its valuation/
                  insurance is not possible, the Collector or the officer
                  authorized by him shall impose such fine as he deems fit.
                  While imposing such fine, the Collector or the officer
                  authorized by him shall have due regard to the economic
                  status of the individual, nature of his involvement in the
                  crime and the quantum of intoxicant recovered.
                  (5). Such penalty shall be, regardless of the outcome of
                  the trial if any. before the Special Court, non-
                  refundable.
                  (6). The owner of the vehicle/conveyance shall, after the
                  release of the vehicle/conveyance, produce the vehicle/
                  conveyance as and when required by the authorities.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          15/20




                  13A. Procedure of confiscation of vehicle/conveyance
                  etc-
                  (1). Where it is decided by the Collector that the vehicle
                  is not to be released on penalty or where the owner does
                  not pay the required penalty, the confiscation proceeding
                  shall be initiated. The proposal for confiscation of the
                  conveyance shall be sent by the police/excise officer to
                  the Collector (or an officer authorized by him) within 30
                  days from the date of seizure. The officer concerned
                  shall immediately start the confiscation proceeding.
                        In case of delay of beyond 30 days, in submission
                  of the proposal of confiscation, the police/excise officer
                  will have to explain the delay.
                  (2). The officer concerned, on receipt of proposal for
                  confiscation of any vehicle(s) or other conveyances from
                  police/excise officer, shall issue show cause notice to
                  owner of the said vehicle or the vessel or other
                  conveyance. Simultaneously, he shall issue notice to the
                  District Transport Officer and the Chemical Examiner
                  for their reports.
                  (3). Such notice issued by the officer shall be served as
                  per procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal
                  Procedure, 1973 for service of summons. He shall
                  obtain report from the District Transport Officer or any
                  authority authorized for the purpose of registration of
                  the conveyance and the report of chemical examiner
                  within 30 days of seizure.
                  (4). The officer shall provide reasonable opportunity of
                  hearing to the owner. The investigating/inquiry officer
                  shall also be given opportunity to participate in such
                  hearing.
                  (5). If, on the date fixed for hearing, the person(s) to
                  whom the notice has validly been served fail(s) to
                  appear in the proceeding on two consecutive dates fixed
                  for hearing, the confiscating authority shall proceed to
                  pass the order ex-parte.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          16/20




                  (6). The officer, after hearing the parties, on satisfaction
                  that an offence has been committed in terms of the Act,
                  shall pass appropriate order with respect to seized
                  vehicle or vessel or conveyance as the case may be.
                  (7). The officer shall ensure that the order for
                  confiscation is passed within 90 days from the date of
                  seizure of the vehicle.
                  (8). Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the
                  Collector under the provisions of the Act may file appeal
                  in the manner prescribed under these Rules.”
         13.     Now coming back to the present case, we find that instead

         of releasing the vehicle in question, pursuant to an application

         made by the petitioner under Rule 12A(2) of the Rules, 2021,

         the Collector/ the officer authorized by him, i.e the Sub-

         Divisional Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur), by the impugned

         order dated 01.07.2025, has upon considering the aforesaid

         provisions contained in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act/

         Rules, deemed it fit and proper not to release the vehicle in

         question upon payment of penalty and instead has confiscated

         the vehicle in question, since he has considered it expedient in

         the public interest to do so on account of recovery of huge

         quantity of illicit liquor to the tune of 350.250 liters from the

         vehicle in question. We find that since the vehicle in question

         has already stood confiscated, the issue of release of vehicle,

         upon payment of penalty under Rule 12A(2) of the Rules, 2021

         is no longer relevant, hence the appropriate remedy available to
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          17/20




         the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order of confiscation

         of the vehicle in question dated 1.7.2025, passed by the Sub-

         Divisional Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur) in Excise (Vehicle

         Confiscation) Case No. 24/2025, by filing appropriate appeal in

         terms of Section 92 of the Act, 2016, which is reproduced herein

         below:-

                  92. Appeals—
                  (1) All final orders passed by any Excise Officer other
                  than the Excise Commissioner or Collector under this
                  Act, shall be appealable to the Collector within sixty
                  days from the date of the order.
                  (2) All final orders passed by the Collector and Excise
                  Commissioner shall be appealable to the Excise
                  Commissioner and the State Government respectively
                  within 90 days from the date of the order complained of.
                  Provided that no second appeal shall lie against an
                  order passed by the Excise Commissioner on appeal.
                  (3)The State Government may make rules in this behalf.
         14.     We further find from the materials on record that the

         petitioner has raised disputed question of facts, as has already

         been mentioned hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs, which

         may, for their determination, require oral or documentary

         evidence to be taken, hence such disputes cannot be considered

         appropriately in a writ petition by this Court under Article 226

         of the Constitution of India and the remedy of the petitioner

         would lie elsewhere, i.e filing of an appeal under Section 92 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          18/20




         the Act, 2016 against the impugned order dated 1.7.2025, which

         the learned counsel for the petitioner has refused to avail.

         Reference in this regard be had to the judgments rendered by the

         Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thansingh Nathmal &

         others v. the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors., reported

         in A.I.R. 1964 SC 1419, the one reported in (2020) 6 SCCC 256

         (Punjab National Bank and others v. Atmanand Singh and

         others.), the one reported in (1974) 2 SCC 706 (Babubhai

         Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot) and the one

         rendered in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs.

         Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr., reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134.

         15.     Yet another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has

         not taken recourse to the alternative remedy available under

         Section 92 of the Act, 2016 and has instead approached this

         Court directly by filing the present writ petition, which is not

         maintainable. It is a well-settled law that when a right is created

         by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for

         enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that

         particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary

         remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this

         Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,

         convenience and discretion. Reference in this connection be had
Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                          19/20




         to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

         of Seth Chand Ratan Vs. Pandit Durga Prasad (D) By Lrs. &

         Others, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 399, the one reported in

         (1974) 2 SCC 706 (Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal

         Khodidas Barot & Others), and the one rendered in the case of

         Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &

         Ors., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771.

         16.     As far as the judgment dated 16.5.2019 passed by a

         coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Giri

         (supra), referred to in the writ petition and relied upon for the

         purposes of release of the vehicle in question is concerned,

         firstly in the said case meager quantity i.e. 540 ml Indian made

         Foreign liquor had been recovered and secondly, no confiscation

         proceeding pertaining to the vehicle in question was pending,

         however in the present case, huge quantity of illicit liquor i.e.

         350.250 liters has been recovered from the vehicle in question

         and moreover, by the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, the

         vehicle in question has already stood confiscated and has also

         been directed to be auction sold, hence the only efficacious

         remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the said order

         dated 1.7.2025, by filing an appeal in terms of Section 92 of the

         Act, 2016.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1800 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
                                                       20/20




                      17.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

                      and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the

                      present writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.


                                              (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                                ( Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          01.04.2026
Transmission Date       NA