Patna High Court
Vishal DhilloversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the vehicle cannot be released by mandamus because the petitioner was aware of the liquor and the earlier judgments are distinguishable.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Dhillo, sought a writ of mandamus for the release of his vehicle seized by Excise officials after 2.7 litres of foreign liquor was found inside, despite his presence in the vehicle at the time of seizure. He relied on earlier Patna High Court decisions (Satvinder Singh Bedi and Chmeli Singh) where vehicles were released because only a small quantity of liquor was recovered and the owners claimed lack of knowledge. The State argued that the present facts differed, emphasizing that the petitioner was aware of the liquor and therefore could not be treated as an innocent owner. The Court distinguished the earlier cases, noting that in those, the owners denied knowledge of the liquor, unlike the present petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ application, directing the petitioner to file an application under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 for release upon payment of the prescribed penalty.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to release a vehicle seized under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 when the owner was aware of the liquor present.
- Whether the precedents of Satvinder Singh Bedi and Chmeli Singh are applicable to the present facts.
- Whether the petitioner must seek release of the vehicle by filing an application under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 and paying the penalty.
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- mandamus
- small quantity liquor
- penalty
- Rule 12(A)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4535 of 2026
======================================================
Vishal Dhillo, S/o Kanwar Singh Dhillo, R/o House No. 311, Near DPG
College, NKV Residency, Sector 72 A, Narsinghpur, Gurgaon, Haryana
(122004). ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj, Bihar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, Bihar.
5. The Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, Bihar.
6. The SHO, Kuchaikote P.S. Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Anamika Anshu, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, AC to SC-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to SC-9 for the State of Bihar.
2. This is an application seeking the following reliefs:-
“(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 Baleno having
Registration No. HR-26-FG-5244, Engine
No.- K12NP4393006 and Chassis No.
MBHHWB13SM642629 which has been
seized by the State officials under the
Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 544/2025 u/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.4535 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Act, 2016;
(ii) For direction may be given for disposal
of present case in light of the Hon’ble Patna
High Court’s decision in Chmeli Singh v.
The State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No.
7361 of 2025) case.
(iii) For any other order/ orders, relief/
reliefs for which the petitioner may be
entitled in the eyes of law.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
vehicle belongs to the petitioner and the petitioner was very much
present in the vehicle when it was intercepted by the Excise Team
and from the vehicle, 2.700 liters of foreign liquor was recovered.
4. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Satvinder Singh Bedi vs. The State of
Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 1069 of 2025) in which learned
Co-ordinate Bench has been pleased to direct release of the truck
in question on finding that only 750ml of liquor was found under
the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Learned counsel has also relied
upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Chmeli Singh
vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 7361 of 2025)
wherein also this Court has granted release of the vehicle after
noticing recovery of a meager quantity of the liquor.
5. On the other hand, learned AC to SC-9 for the State
Patna High Court CWJC No.4535 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
submits that the judgments relied by learned counsel for the
petitioner would not serve the purpose in the present case as the
facts of the present case are entirely different. Learned counsel
points out that in the present case, it is an admitted position that
the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, he was himself present in
the vehicle when the same was intercepted by the Excise Team. It
is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the liquor
kept in the vehicle. If it is so, then by no stretch of imagination,
this Court may tweak the legal provisions so as to take a view that
the vehicle be released without paying penalty.
6. We would fully agree with the submissions of learned
AC to SC-9. Decision of a case depends on the facts of the said
case.
7. In the present case, the facts are crystal clear. The
petitioner being the owner of the vehicle was himself present in
the vehicle and it is not his case that he was not aware of the liquor
kept in the vehicle. The only ground stated before this Court is that
the quantity of liquor is meager quantity, therefore, a similar view
be taken as has been taken in the case of Satvinder Singh Bedi
(supra) and Chmeli Singh (supra).
8. We regret to accept the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Satvinder Singh Bedi
(supra), 750ml of liquor was recovered under the driver’s seat and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4535 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
it was contended by the owner of the vehicle that he was not aware
of the fact that the driver was carrying any liquor. In the case of
Chmeli Singh (supra) also it was contended by the owner of the
vehicle that the vehicle was misused by her fellow villagers who
had borrowed it on the pretext of going to a marriage. These
judgments are clearly distinguished.
9. In result, we find no merit in the writ application.
10. Needless to say that the order of this Court would
not come in the way of the petitioner in filing of an appropriate
application in terms of Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up-to-date) before the
Confiscating Authority for release of the vehicle in question on
payment of penalty. If any such application is filed within one
month from today, the same will be considered by the Confiscating
Authority and an appropriate order shall be passed within two
weeks from the date of filing of the said application.
11. This application is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U
Checking your session…