Patna High Court

Chandra Kishor MandalversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition cannot set aside the confiscation order and the petitioner must avail the statutory appeal remedy.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandra Kishor Mandal, challenged the confiscation of his land‑cum‑house by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the confiscation order, issued after police seized five litres of country‑made liquor and related manufacturing articles, suffered from jurisdictional error and violated natural justice. The High Court examined the petition and noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any breach of jurisdiction or natural justice principles. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not the appropriate remedy and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal available under the relevant excise legislation. The Court allowed the petitioner a period of thirty days to file the appeal and also permitted an application for unsealing of the premises during the pendency of the appeal. The writ application was therefore disposed of without granting any relief.

Issues considered

Whether the confiscation order is vitiated by jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice.
Whether a writ under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy for challenging the confiscation order.

Subjects

Article 226
confiscation
excise
natural justice
statutory appeal
land seizure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4846 of 2026
                 ======================================================
                 Chandra Kishor Mandal Son of Late Sri Prasad Mandal @ Khattar Mandal,
                 resident of village Lakshmipur Bhagwati, P.S. Srinagar, District Madhepura.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar through Excise Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
           2.    The Collector-cum-District Magistrate Madhepura.
           3.    The Superintendent of Police, Madhepura.
           4.    The Excise Superintendent, Madhepura.
           5.     The Station House Officer, Sri Nagar Police Station, District Madhepura.
                                                                            ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Rishi Sinha, Advocate
                                                Ms.Pooja Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s    :      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                   The petitioner in this case has invoked the extraordinary

                   writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

                   of India for setting aside the order of confiscation of the land-cum-

                   house of the petitioner.

                                 2. It appears that from the premises in question police

                   has recovered five liters of country made liquor and manufacturing

                   articles as per the seizure list.

                                 3. In the confiscation proceeding, the petitioner had

                   appeared and filed his written statement which has been

                   considered and then the order of confiscation has been passed.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to
           Patna High Court CWJC No.4846 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     demonstrate that the order suffers from jurisdictional error or that

                     it is in the breach of the principles of natural justice.

                                 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the

                     opinion that the petitioner, if so advised, may avail the alternative

                     remedy of statutory appeal before the competent forum. If any

                     such appeal is preferred within a period of thirty days from today,

                     the same will be considered by the competent authority keeping in

                     view that under some bonafide legal advise the petitioner has

                     approached this Court and the matter remain pending in this Court

                     since the filing of the writ application on or about 13.03.2026. The

                     appeal shall be heard on its own merit.

                                 6. The petitioner will be at liberty to make an

                     application for unsealing of the premises during pendency of the

                     appeal which shall also be considered by the appellate authority

                     within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the

                     application/appeal, as the case may be.

                                 7. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.



                                          (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)


                                               ( Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-

U

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…