Patna High Court
Ramesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner must avail the statutory remedy under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules.
Summary
Petitioner Ramesh Kumar sought the release of his seized Maruti Brezza, which was confiscated under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and Sections 25(1‑b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The State contended that the petitioner could obtain release by invoking Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended), which provides for release on payment of a penalty. The petitioner did not dispute the existence of this statutory remedy but chose to file a writ petition in the High Court. The Court held that when a specific statutory remedy is available, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked and therefore refused to entertain the petition. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application under Rule 12A within 30 days, after which the competent authority must decide the matter. The writ application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 is available.
- Whether the seizure of the vehicle can be directly challenged through a writ despite the existence of a statutory remedy.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b), 26, 35
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- seizure of vehicle
- statutory remedy
- writ jurisdiction
- Rule 12A
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Arms Act
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2653 of 2026
======================================================
Ramesh Kumar S/o Achhayavar Prasad, R/o Ward No. 12, Dudahi, P.S.
Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, East Champaran at Motihari.
5. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.
6. The Station House Officer, Harsidhi Police Station, District - East
Champaran
7. The Investigating Officer of Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 571 of 2024, District-
East Champaran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Uday Shankar Sharan Singh, GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 16-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
GP-19 for the State.
2. Petitioner in this case is seeking release of the
vehicle, i.e. Maruti Brezza car bearing Registration No.
BR22BE8208 which has been seized in connection with
Harsidhi P.S Case No. 571 of 2024 dated 26.10.2024 instituted
under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016 and Sections 25(1-b), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2653 of 2026(4) dt.16-06-2026
2/3
3. Learned GP-19 for the State submits that the
petitioner has got an equally efficacious statutory remedy under
Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as
amended up-to-date) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of
2021 (as amended up-to-date)’). The said provision provides for
release of the vehicle seized in connection with the Excise case
on payment of penalty. The Rule also provides for the upper
limit of the penalty which may be imposed keeping in view the
various factors such as the quantity of liquor said to have been
recovered from the vehicle. The statutory remedy has been
given a go-bye by the petitioner who has chosen to directly
move this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
that there is a statutory remedy available to him.
5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we refuse to
entertain the writ application. The petitioner is at liberty to file
an appropriate application invoking Rule 12A of the Rules of
2021 (as amended up-to-date). If such an application is filed
within a period of 30 days from today, the same will be
considered by the competent authority, i.e. the Collector or an
officer authorised by him within a period of 30 days from the
date of filing of the application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2653 of 2026(4) dt.16-06-2026
3/3
6. An appropriate order shall be passed within the
aforesaid period keeping in view the various factors prescribed
under the Rules. The petitioner will be at liberty to place the
judicial pronouncements on the subject before the competent
authority.
7. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Lekhi/- ritwika/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.