Patna High Court
Bablu Kumar Mahto @ Bablu MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the penalty must be limited to 10 % of the insured value and that the additional 3 % fine is unlawful, thereby modifying the impugned order and quashing the extra fine.
Summary
The petitioner, Bablu Mahto, was arrested after his vehicle was intercepted by police who discovered 85.125 litres of illicit foreign liquor. He was charged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and the Senior Deputy Collector imposed a penalty of 40 % of the vehicle’s insured value plus an additional 3 % fine. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing the penalty was excessive and the extra 3 % fine was unauthorized. The High Court examined the facts, noted the absence of any indication that the petitioner was a habitual offender, and referred to earlier decisions that excessive penalties create undue hardship. It reduced the penalty to 10 % of the insured value (Rs 4,28,240) and quashed the additional 3 % fine, directing release of the vehicle upon payment. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 40 % penalty imposed under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is excessive and violative of the statute.
- Whether the confiscating authority has power to levy an additional 3 % fine over and above the statutory penalty.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- prohibition law
- penalty assessment
- excessive penalty
- additional fine
- writ petition
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20701 of 2025
======================================================
Bablu Kumar Mahto @ Bablu Mahto Son of Jageshwar Mahto, resident of
Village- Lodipur, Police Station- Mahnar, District Vaishali. Presently House
No. N. 103 Zamrudpur, Greater Kailash, S.O. South Delhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Registration and Excise
Department, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Patna
3. The Senior Deputy Collector cum Excise Court, Patna.
4. The Station House Officer, Bahadurpur Police Station, Patna.
5. The Investigating Officer, Bahadurpur Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Ban Bihari Singh, Advocate
Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Kumari Amrita, GP-3
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AC to GP-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
4 05-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Senior Deputy Collector,
Patna-cum-In-charge Officer, District Development Branch,
Patna i.e. the respondent no. 3 in Vehicle Confiscation Case No.
63 of 2025-26 and consequently direct the respondents to
Patna High Court CWJC No.20701 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/6
release the vehicle (Ertiga) bearing Registration No. HR55AV-
3400, Chassis No. MA3BNC62SRM938830 and Engine No.
K15CN9668211.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.07.2025 at about
10:00 p.m. when the police patrolling party was on patrolling
duty and were conducting checking of the vehicles, one white
colour Ertiga vehicle, which was also plying on the road started
moving backwards upon seeing the police party, leading to the
police force having suspected some foul play, hence the said
Ertiga car was chased and intercepted, whereupon the driver
was caught, who upon enquiry disclosed his name as Bablu
Mahto (petitioner) and upon search of the said Ertiga vehicle,
85.125 liters of illicit foreign liquor was recovered.
3. On the basis of the written report of the police personnel
of Bahadurpur Police Station, Patna, Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.
231 of 2025 dated 20.07.2025 was registered under Section
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act, 2016’) against the said Bablu Mahto
(petitioner) and owner of the Ertiga car.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the respondent no. 3 while passing the impugned order dated
25.11.2025 has imposed excessive penalty which is to the extent
Patna High Court CWJC No.20701 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/6
of 40% of the insured value of the vehicle, thus the same defeats
the provisions contained in the Act, 2016 for release of the
vehicle in question. It is submitted that the vehicle was found
carrying 85.125 liters of illicit foreign liquor, which is not a
huge quantity, hence a sympathetic view be taken and the
amount assessed as penalty be reduced.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the vehicle was found carrying 85.125 liters of
illicit foreign liquor, which is a huge quantity, therefore in order
to discourage transportation of such huge quantity of liquor, the
penalty to the extent of 40% is reasonable and no illegality can
be found with the same.
6. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties. A bare perusal of the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents would show that there is no
material on record to suggest that the aforesaid vehicle in
question was in regular use for transportation of liquor or the
petitioner herein is a habitual offender. At this juncture, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has stated across the bar that
the petitioner is having a clean antecedent and save and except
the connected case, he is not an accused in any other case.
7. We have also gone through the order dated 26.11.2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.20701 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
4/6
passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 14928
of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar &
others) and the one dated 01.12.2025 passed in the case of Alok
Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & others (CWJC No. 15636 of
2025). In the said cases, the learned coordinate Benches of this
Court have held that imposition of excessive penalty is an
onerous condition and it amounts to virtually creating a situation
where huge hardship may be caused to an owner of the vehicle
in getting release of the vehicle.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
as discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that
10% of the insured value of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 4,28,240/- would
be a reasonable amount by way of penalty. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the said amount would be
deposited within a period of three weeks from today.
Accordingly, we direct that if the afore-said amount is deposited
within a period of three weeks from today, the vehicle in
question shall be released by the concerned authority in favor of
the petitioner forthwith, after being satisfied with the documents
of the ownership of the vehicle in question. Consequently, the
order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 stands
modified to the aforesaid extent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20701 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
5/6
9. Now, coming to the issue of levy of 3% fine to the tune of
Rs. 12,847/-, to be deposited with the account of Bihar State
Beverages Corporation Limited (in short ‘BSBCL’), we find that
the confiscating authority under the provisions contained in the
Act, 2016, as amended up to date has no power to impose an
additional 3% penalty over and above the penalty amount. We
further find that the confiscating authority, on its own cannot
impose penalty over & above what has been sanctioned by law.
In this connection, reference be had to a judgment dated
11.12.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Shantanu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC
No. 18561 of 2025).
10. In view of the law laid down in the case of Shantanu
Kumar (supra) as also considering the fact that the Act, 2016
does not mandate imposition of additional penalty over and
above what has been sanctioned by law, we find that imposition
of 3% additional penalty is wholly unjust and improper as also
is an act of undue enrichment caused to a government company,
which is not permissible under the law. In such view of the
matter, the additional penalty of 3% to the tune of Rs. 12,847/-
imposed vide order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the respondent
no. 3 is quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20701 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
6/6
11. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
S.Sb/-
U
Checking your session…