Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar @ Ajit RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The impugned confiscation, appellate and revisional orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error and are valid.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, owned a Bolero pickup vehicle financed by NBFC Cholamandalam and allegedly transferred it to a third party before it was seized for transporting liquor. The confiscating authority, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, ordered confiscation and subsequent appellate and revisional authorities upheld the order. The petitioner filed a writ seeking to set aside the confiscation, appellate, and revisional orders, arguing that the vehicle had been transferred and that the authorities violated Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 and Section 57B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The High Court examined whether the authorities had erred jurisdictionally or violated natural justice. It held that the pleadings and evidence did not demonstrate any jurisdictional defect and that the petitioner’s post‑transfer agreement could not rescue him from the confiscation. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether the confiscation order can be set aside on the ground that the petitioner had transferred the vehicle before the alleged offence
- Whether the appellate order violated Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021
- Whether the revisional order violated Section 57B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
- Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in the confiscation, appeal and revision proceedings
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 57B
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
Subjects
- confiscation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules
- writ jurisdiction
- vehicle hypothecation
- natural justice
- appeal
- revision
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.255 of 2026
======================================================
Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Ray Son of Ratan Ray, Resident of Ward No. 02, Village
and Post- Keota, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District- Samastipur, Bihar-848114.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary (Prohibition and Excise),
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Prohibition (Headquarter), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gopalganj Sadar, District Gopalganj.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
6. The Station House Officer, Mahammadpur, P.S.- Mahammadpur, District-
Gopalganj.
7. Mayank Kumar Son of Sikandar Rai, Village and P.O- Mekra, P.S.-
Mokama, District-Patna, Bihar-803221.
8. M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., office at Dare
House, 2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, P.S.- George Town, District- Chennai,
Tamilnadu-600001 and Chowdhury Estate, 55/55/1, Chowringee road, 5th
Floor, P.S.-Shakespeare Sarani, District- Kolkata-70001, West Bengal-
700071, Both represented through Probir Kumar Sarkar (Power of attorney
Holder).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anirban Kundu, Standing Counsel (24)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 12-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
SC-24 for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application is
seeking the following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.255 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
2/6
“(i) For setting aside the order dated
15.02.2025 passed on 08.03.2025 (Annexure-
P/7) by the learned Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, Gopalganj in Excise Confiscation
Case No. 62/2024, whereby the Bolero Pick
Up Vehicle bearing Registration No.-
BR06GG2479 has been confiscated and
direction has been issued to auction the vehicle
without taking into consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case, without
appreciating the correct position of law and
even without considering the specific grounds
taken by the petitioner.
(ii) For setting aside of the appellat eorder
contained in Memo No.-11/Utpad Appeal Vaad
Sankhya/86/2025-56 dated 15.07.2025
(Annexure-P/9) issued with the signature of
Deputy Commissioner Prohibition,
(Headquarter) Bihar, Patna in Excise Appeal
No.-86/2025, whereby the appeal of the
petitioner has been dismissed in gross violation
of Rule-12A of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Rules, 2021.
(iii) For setting aside the revisional order
contained in Memo No.-11/Utpad Punrikshan
Vaad Sankhya-25/2025-25 dated 18.09.2025
(Annexure-P/11) issued with the signature of
Secretary (Prohibition and Excise) Bihar, Patna
in Excise Revision Case No.-25/2025, whereby
the revision of the petitioner has been rejected
in violation of Section 57B of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and in
violation of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition
Patna High Court CWJC No.255 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
3/6
and Excise Rules, 2021 as the petitioner was
not involved in the alleged occurrence.
(iv) The petitioner further prays that after
setting aside the order of confiscation vehicle
of the petitioner may be released in his favour
as he is not at all responsible for the alleged
occurrence.
(v) For any other relief/s for which the
petitioner may be deemed entitled to.”
3. From the averments made in the writ application
and the submissions made at the Bar, it appears that this
petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. He
had purchased the vehicle with financial assistance from M/s
Cholamandalam, a Non-Banking Financial Institution
(Respondent No. 8). While the vehicle was still under
hypothecation and the loans were yet to be discharged, the
petitioner entered into an agreement dated 16.09.2024
whereunder the petitioner transferred the vehicle to a third party,
namely, Mayank Kumar. M/s Cholamandalam (Respondent No.
8) is not a party to the said agreement.
4. Later on, the vehicle in question has been allegedly
found involved in transportation of 693 litres of liquor. A first
information report being Mahammadpur P.S. Case No. 249 of
2024 dated 03.11.2024 has been lodged. The petitioner has been
implicated in this case as owner of the vehicle.
Patna High Court CWJC No.255 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
4/6
5. It further appears that a confiscation proceeding
was initiated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(as amended up to date) and the rules framed thereunder. The
Confiscating Authority issued notice to the petitioner who
appeared and participated in the hearing. The order of
confiscation has been passed keeping in view the fact that huge
quantity of liquors were found under transportation through the
said vehicle. The order of the Confiscating Authority has been
affirmed in appeal. The Revisional Authority refused to interfere
with the confiscation order and the appellate order. The order of
the Revisional Authority passed on 18.09.2025 (Annexure
‘P/11’) is under challenge.
6. Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that neither the Confiscating Authority nor
the subsequent authority under the appeal and revision have
considered the case of the petitioner, particularly, that he had
already part with the vehicle in question under agreement dated
16.09.2024. It is submitted that M/s Cholamandalam
(Respondent No. 8) has lodged a criminal case against the
petitioner and the petitioner has lodged a criminal case against
Mayank Kumar which are still going on.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.255 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
5/6
submits that the order of confiscation, the appellate order as
well as the revisional order are in accordance with law. The
principle of natural justice has been duly followed and the
petitioner has not shown any jurisdictional error in the orders
passed by the competent authorities under the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended up to date). In such
circumstance, it is submitted that this Court may not interfere
with the impugned orders by substituting its opinion in the place
of the opinion of the statutory authorities.
8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances
of the case, the pleadings available on the record and the
submissions noted at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional
error. The fact is that the vehicle in question was purchased by
the petitioner under financial assistance and it is said to be under
hypothecation, in such circumstance, the plea of the petitioner
that he had entered into an agreement dated 16.09.2024 with one
Mayank Kumar and that should have been considered by the
Confiscating Authority does not inspire confidence of this
Court. Apparently, the plea is totally misconceived as according
to this Court, such documents which are being prepared to save
the skin of the petitioner cannot come to his rescue in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.255 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
6/6
confiscation matter. These are the observations we are making
only for purpose of this case. So far as the criminal proceedings
are concerned, no part of the observations of this Court shall be
utilised in the criminal proceedings.
9. We find no perversity with the impugned orders.
There being no jurisdictional error with the impugned orders,
we decline to exercise our extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
10. This writ application is dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.