Patna High Court
Vishal RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that without proof of ownership transfer it could not grant writ relief, but the petitioner may appeal the confiscation and seek release on payment of the penalty under Rule 12A.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Raj, purchased a vehicle at an auction but failed to submit Form 32 and the requisite fee to have his name entered in the registration certificate. The vehicle was later seized by the Excise Department under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 for allegedly carrying illicit liquor, and a writ of mandamus was filed seeking its release. The High Court observed that the petitioner had not proved ownership transfer and therefore could not entertain the writ relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction. However, recognizing that the petitioner bought the vehicle in auction, the Court granted him liberty to appeal the confiscation order and to seek release of the vehicle upon payment of the penalty prescribed in Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. The writ application was consequently disposed, with the matter left open for an appeal within 30 days.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing release of a seized vehicle when the petitioner has not effected transfer of ownership in the registration certificate.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under the writ jurisdiction despite the lack of proof of ownership.
- Whether the petitioner may appeal the confiscation order and obtain release of the vehicle on payment of penalty under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- ownership transfer
- auction purchase
- penalty
- Rule 12A
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4227 of 2026
======================================================
Vishal Raj S/o Ajay Sah, Resident of Mohalla-137, Teachers Colony Near
Shiv Mandir, P.S.-Chitraguptnagar, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Excise and Prohibition
Department, Gov. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.
4. Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.
5. The SHO Mufuasil, District Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abbas Haider, SC 6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
SC-6 for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application is
seeking the following relief(s):-
“(i) for issuance of a writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate
order/orders direction/directions directing
the respondents to release the vehicle of the
petitioner which is while pickup bolero
bearing registration number BR 33GA 0165
Chassis No.- MA1-ZN2GH-KF1H62465
Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
Engine no. GHE1H44511.- in connection
with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 551/2022 u/s
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act,
2016 of the Bihar.
And/or
for any other order/orders
relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be
entitled in the eyes of law.”
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on
22.06.2026, this Court had passed the following orders:-
“Learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that he had
purchased the vehicle in an auction sale
vide Annexure ‘P/2’. According to him,
the name of the purchaser/petitioner was
not transferred in the certificate of
registration by the District Transport
Office (in short ‘DTO’), Jamui as a result
whereof when the vehicle was stolen away
and then it was seized while carrying
illicit liquors, in the subsequent
proceedings, the notice was wrongly sent
to the erstwhile registered owner. His
clear case is that he had not been served.
2. On perusal of Annexure
‘P/2’, it appears that the name of the
petitioner could have been incorporated
in the certificate of registration only when
he would have submitted Form 32 with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
requisite fee, identity letter and residential
certificate. 3. In the writ application, there
is no averment that the petitioner had
applied for transfer of the ownership of
the said vehicle.
4. On much insistence by
learned counsel for the petitioner, we pass
over the matter for the day to enable the
petitioner to produce the proof of
submission of Form 32 with requisite fees
and documents in the office of the DTO,
Jamui. 5. Learned counsel for the State is
present.
6. List this matter on
23.06.2026.”
4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had not submitted Form 32 with requisite fee
and documents in the office of District Transport Officer, Jamui
for transfer of his name.
5. In such circumstance, we are unable to proceed
with the matter in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The
certificate of ownership is not in the name of the petitioner.
However, it appears that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle
in auction sale.
6. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner had
purchased the vehicle in auction sale, we grant liberty to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation
on the grounds whatsoever would be available to the petitioner
in accordance with law. He may also pray for release of the
vehicle in question on payment of penalty in terms of Rule 12A
of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
7. If an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days
from today before the appellate authority, the appellate authority
shall consider the same keeping in view the entire materials
which may be brought to his notice.
8. All questions are left open to the parties.
9. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Ranjeet/-arvind
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.