Patna High Court
Bhagwan Mistri @ Bhagwan SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The confiscation order dated 19‑02‑2025 is quashed as it contravenes the procedural requirements of Section 58 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhagwan Mistri, challenged the confiscation of his vehicle (Reg. No. JH-03AC-8034) along with 24 other vehicles under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 after 700 litres of spirit were allegedly recovered from the vehicle. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Department‑cum‑Presiding Officer, Aurangabad issued a composite confiscation order on 19‑02‑2025 without giving a specific reason for the petitioner’s vehicle, without recording any satisfaction that confiscation was in the public interest, and without providing a hearing as mandated by Section 58 of the Act. The petitioner argued that no notice was served and the order was perverse; the State contended that notice was sent by registered post but admitted the lack of a separate reason. The Court examined Section 58, which requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard and a recorded satisfaction before confiscation, and found the order violated these statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court quashed the confiscation order as it pertained to the petitioner’s vehicle and directed the petitioner to approach the Collector under Rule 12A of the 2023 Rules for release upon payment of penalty.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy Collector complied with Section 58 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 by providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing before ordering confiscation.
- Whether the confiscation order required a specific finding that confiscation was expedient in the public interest.
- Whether the lack of a separate reason and failure to record satisfaction renders the order perverse and liable to be quashed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- confiscation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- due process
- hearing requirement
- public interest
- writ petition
- vehicle seizure
- Rule 12A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18480 of 2025
======================================================
Bhagwan Mistri @ Bhagwan Sharma Son of Ramdhani Mistri, Resident of
Village- Dalpatpur, P.O.- Chaparwar, PS- Hariharganj, District- Palamu,
Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The Excise Superintendent, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.
5. The District Land Reforms Deputy Collector-cum-Confiscating Officer,
Aurangabad.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Amba Police Station, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh, GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 22-01-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 19.2.2025, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms Department-cum-Presiding Officer, Aurangabad in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
2/7
connection with Confiscation Case No. 46/2024, whereby and
whereunder an order for confiscation of the vehicle of the
petitioner bearing Registration No. JH-03AC-8034 has been
passed along with the order to confiscate 24 other vehicles.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Amba P.S. Case
No. 49/2024 was lodged on 15.3.2024 under Section 30(a) of
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as “the Act, 2016”) against one Chandan Kumar Sharma and
owner of white colour Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No.
JH-03AC-8034, which in fact belongs to the petitioner, on
account of recovery of 700 liters of spirit from the said vehicle.
3. The learned Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms
Department-cum-Presiding Officer, Aurangabad had initiated
confiscation proceedings qua the vehicle of the petitioner and
other vehicles and a composite order of confiscation, pertaining
to 25 vehicles has been passed as also it has been directed to get
the valuation of the said vehicles done, whereafter action be
taken to auction the same.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
first of all, no reason has been assigned in the impugned order
dated 19.2.2025 for confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner,
apart from a bald statement with regard to all the 25 vehicles
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
3/7
that liquor was recovered from the said vehicles and even after
notice, no person / owner of the vehicles has come and put forth
their defence, hence the vehicles are being confiscated. It is
further submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner so as
to enable him to put forth his defence before the confiscating
authority, hence the order dated 19.2.2025 is perverse and fit to
be set aside. Nonetheless, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to pay penalty for
getting his vehicle released, by filing appropriate petition under
Section 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as to “the Rules, 2023”).
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State
has referred to the counter affidavit, filed in the present case and
has submitted that notice was issued to the owner of the vehicles
in question through registered post, however the petitioner had
failed to appear in the confiscation proceedings, leading to
passing of an ex parte order dated 19.2.2025. Nonetheless, the
learned counsel for the Respondent-State has fairly admitted
that no separate reason has been furnished in the impugned
order dated 19.2.2025 for confiscation of the vehicle of the
petitioner.
6 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
4/7
perused the materials on record. At the outset, we would
gainfully reproduce Section 58 of the Act, 2016 hereinbelow:-
“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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
5/7
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 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.”
7. A bare perusal of Section 58 of the Act, 2016 would show
that the confiscating authority has to give a reasonable
opportunity to the person concerned, of being heard before
passing a confiscation order and while making an order of
confiscation, he is to record his satisfaction that it is expedient
in the public interest to confiscate the seized property, then only
he can order for confiscation and sale of the property in question
by public auction. However, we find that admittedly, no
satisfaction has been recorded by the confiscating authority in
the impugned order dated 19.2.2025 that confiscation of the
vehicle of the petitioner is expedient in the public interest and
on the contrary, the confiscating authority, by the impugned
order dated 19.2.2025 has passed a composite order with regard
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
6/7
to 25 vehicles merely mentioning therein that since liquor has
been recovered from all the vehicles, the same are being
confiscated. Thus, we find that the Deputy Collector, Land
Reforms Department-cum-Presiding Officer, Aurangabad while
passing the impugned order dated 19.2.2025 has not only failed
to comply with the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, 2016 but
the order passed by him is contrary to the provisions, contained
therein, hence the order dated 19.2.2025, passed by the Deputy
Collector, Land Reforms Department-cum-Presiding Officer,
Aurangabad qua the vehicle of the petitioner herein bearing
Registration No. JH-03AC-8034, Engine No. XKL6M58365,
Chassis No. MA1XK2XKXM5A22334 is quashed. The
petitioner is granted liberty to file appropriate petition under
Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Rules, 2023 before the learned Collector, Aurangabad /
authorized officer for release of his vehicle upon payment of
penalty and in case such an application is filed within a period
of three weeks from today, the learned Collector, Aurangabad /
authorized officer shall consider the same, in accordance with
law and pass a reasoned and a speaking order within a period of
four weeks, thereafter.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off
Patna High Court CWJC No.18480 of 2025 dt.22-01-2026
7/7
on the aforesaid terms.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
( Praveen Kumar, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 3.2.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…