Patna High Court
Shailesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first appeal the confiscation order under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and may seek release under the Explanation to Rule 12A, and therefore the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
Shailesh Kumar filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of newly inserted provisions (Rule 12A(1)-(5)) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, alleging arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and also requested the release of his seized truck (BR01GM-8943). The petitioner later withdrew the challenge to the rules and limited his relief to the release of the vehicle. The Court observed that the truck had already been ordered confiscated and that such an order is appealable under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Explanation to Rule 12A permits the owner to apply for release by paying the prescribed penalty provided the auction has not yet taken place. Since the auction has not occurred, the petitioner may file an application with the Collector or authorized officer within four weeks, and the authority must decide within a month. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the newly inserted Rule 12A provisions are ultra vires and violative of constitutional guarantees.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his seized vehicle through a writ despite the pending confiscation order.
- Whether the limitation period applies when the auction of the confiscated vehicle has not yet taken place.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 92
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- vehicle confiscation
- penalty payment
- Rule 12A
- Section 92 appeal
- auction pending
- constitutional challenge
- ultra vires
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18571 of 2024
======================================================
Shailesh Kumar S/o- Late Harendra Ray, Resident of Village- Santha, P.S.-
Awatar Nagar, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, Prohibition Excise and
Registration Department, Patna.
3. Collector, District- Saran, Chapra.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ebrahim Kabir, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S D Sanjay, Advocate General
Ms. Priya Gupta, AC to AG
Mr. Shaswat Agarwal, AC to AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AG for the State of Bihar.
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs:
“1. That this is an application for issuance
of an appropriate writ order or direction for
quashing new rule-12 A (1), 12 A (3), 12 A
(4), 12 A (5) inserted after rule-12 of Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021 vide the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Rule-2022 notification contained in memo
no-11/Utpadniti-01-03/2021 2458 Patna
dated 05-04-2022 issued by Additional
Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar Prohibition,
Excise and Registration Department Bihar
Patna as the same is arbitrary
discriminatory and ultravirus to article-14,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18571 of 2024(5) dt.09-07-2026
2/5
19(g) and 21 the Constitution i.e.
Annexure-3 and also for quashing
notification No.- 11/Utpadniti-01-
03/2021/3671 dated 31-05-2023 Annexure-
4, whereby The Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Rules 2023 has been
issued where in substitution of Sub-Rule
(2) of the 12 A of Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Rules 2021 has been made with the
following (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 as the same is illegal
arbitrary and ultravires to Article 14. 19
and 21 of The Constitution and also for
further direction to released the truck of the
petitioner namely BR01GM-8943 without
any penalty which has been seized by the
respondent in Parsa PS Case No.-23/24
dated 20-01-2024 under section 30(a) of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2022
without any penalty or for any other order
or orders which this Hon'ble may deem fit
and proper under the circumstances of this
case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.18571 of 2024(5) dt.09-07-2026
3/5
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he would not press the prayer challenging the new
Rules 12A(1), 12A(3), 12A(4), 12A(5) inserted after Rule 12 of
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021(as amended up to
date) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2021’).
4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, challenge to
those provisions of the Rules is not pressed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
only interested in getting release of the truck in accordance with
law.
6. We find from the supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle in question was subject
matter of confiscation in Confiscation Case No. 142 of 2024.
From Annexure ‘P-5’ to the supplementary affidavit, it would
further appear that order of confiscation has been passed and the
vehicle has been ordered to be auction sold. Three dates for
auction sale were also notified.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
auction sale has yet not taken place. It is also an admitted
position that the order of confiscation is an appealable order but
no appeal has been preferred till date.
8. Learned AG for the State of Bihar submits that in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18571 of 2024(5) dt.09-07-2026
4/5
such circumstance, the petitioner is required to first come out of
the order of confiscation, then only there will be any question of
release of the vehicle.
9. We find force in the submission of learned AG for
the State. From Annexure ‘P-5’ to the supplementary affidavit of
the petitioner, it is evident that the truck in question has already
been confiscated. The order of confiscation is an appealable
order under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016 (as amended up to date), before the competent authority.
Further, we find that the Explanation to Rule 12A of the Rules
of 2021 reads as under:-
“12A. Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc.
on Payment of Penalty.-
Explanation.- In all pending/ongoing cases of
confiscation/auction of vehicles, the Collector
or the officer authorized by him may give an
opportunity to the existing owner to pay the
aforesaid penalty and get the vehicle released.
Upon satisfaction about ownership and upon
payment of such penalty, the ongoing
confiscation/auction proceeding may be
dropped and the vehicle released.”
10. If the vehicle in question has yet not been auction
sold, the petitioner may, if so advised, file an appropriate
application before the Collector or the authorized Officer in
terms of the Explanation to Rule 12A as early as possible and
preferably within a period of four weeks from today. If such an
Patna High Court CWJC No.18571 of 2024(5) dt.09-07-2026
5/5
application is preferred, the same will be considered by the
competent authority/authorized officer, as the case may be, in
accordance with law and an appropriate order thereon shall be
passed within one month from the date of filing of the
application.
11. Since Explanation to Rule 12A itself provides that
this remedy is available if the auction has yet not taken place,
there will be no question of limitation if the auction has not
taken place.
12. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
lekhi/-praphul/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.