Patna High Court
Suresh Chandra Yadav @ Suresh ChandraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The revision order is set aside, thereby vacating the confiscation orders, and the petitioner may obtain release of the vehicle by paying the penalty prescribed under Rule 12A.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Chandra Yadav, challenged the confiscation of his Tata APT truck by the Collector‑cum‑District Magistrate of Kaimur under Section 58(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. He contended that the confiscation was unjustified and not in public interest, and that he was willing to pay a penalty under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. The High Court examined the earlier orders – the Collector’s confiscation order, the Commissioner’s dismissal of the appeal, and the Secretary’s dismissal of the revision – and referred to the precedent Manjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2025) regarding the meaning of "public interest". The Court held that the revision order was illegal and set it aside, which automatically nullified the lower orders. It directed that the petitioner may apply for release of the vehicle within 30 days by paying the prescribed penalty, and the competent authority must decide the application within another 30 days. The writ petition was allowed to the extent specified.
Issues considered
- What is the legal validity of the vehicle confiscation order issued under Section 58(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018?
- Whether the ground of "public interest" invoked by the authorities is sufficient to justify the confiscation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the vehicle upon payment of a penalty under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 58(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- excise law
- public interest
- penalty
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Rule 12A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4849 of 2026
======================================================
Suresh Chandra Yadav @ Suresh Chandra S/o Balwant Yadav @ Balvanta
Yadav R/o Village Kothara Aurai, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi, District-
Bhadohi (Uttar Pradesh).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Excise Department,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Excise, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
7. The Station House Officer (S.H.O) Excise, P.S. District-Kaimur, Bhabhua.
8. The Investigating Officer of Excise Prohibition, F.I.R. No. 426/2025, Excise
P.S - Kaimur, Bhabhua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik, Advocate
Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Shally Kumari, AC to SC-24
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
3 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to SC-24 for the State.
2. Petitioner in this case is seeking the following
reliefs:-
"A. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order/orders, directions,
quashing the following:
i. Order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Excise
Patna High Court CWJC No.4849 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
(Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 22 of 2025 by
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur,
Bhabhua confiscating the TATA APT TRUCK
bearing registration no. UP63BT-2325 under
Section 58 (2) of The Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018. (Annexure- P/3)
ii. Order dated 03.12.2025 passed in Excise
Appeal Case No. 176/2025 by Commissioner
Excise, Bihar, Patna, dismissing the appeal filed
by the Petitioner against the Order dated
12.09.2025 passed by Collector-cum-District
Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabhua by which the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate was pleased to
confiscate TATA APT TRUCK bearing
registration no. UP63BT-2325. (Annexure - P/4)
iii. Order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Excise
Revision Case No. 30/2025 by Secretary, Excise
Prohibition, Bihar, Patna dismissing the revision
filed against the Order dated 03.12.2025 passed in
Excise Appeal Case No. 176/2025 by
Commissioner Excise, Bihar, Patna. (Annexure -
P/5)
B. A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order/orders, directions,
commanding the Respondent for the following:
i. To hold the orders contained in Annexure- P/4
Annexure-P/2, Annexure-P/3 and P/5 are non-est
in the and P15 eye of law.
ii. To release the vehicle- TATA APT TRUCK
bearing registration no. UP63BT-2325 in favour
of the Petitioner forthwith.
C. To any other relief/reliefs for which petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.4849 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
is found entitled to."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the confiscation of the vehicle in question by citing
public interest in not releasing the vehicle is neither legal nor
justified. In the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav Vs. The State
of Bihar & Others reported in 2025 (6) BLJ 797, this Court
has considered sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Rules, 2021 (As Amended Uptodate) (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules of 2021') and has dealt with the words
"public interest" as occurring in the said Rule. It is not a word
of magic and in the garb of public interest the competent
authority could not have refused release of the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not
an accused in the case and is willing to get release of the vehicle
in question by paying a reasonable amount of penalty which
may be imposed in terms of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021.
5. Learned AC to SC-24 submits that if the petitioner
applies for release of the vehicle in question and pays the
penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority, the
competent authority may be directed to release the vehicle in
question on payment of penalty.
6. Having regard to the kind of submissions recorded
hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order as contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.4849 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
Annexure-P/5. As a result of setting aside of Annexure-P/5, the
orders passed by the Commissioner, Excise (Annexure-P/4) and
the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua)
(Annexure-P/3) automatically vanish.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application
seeking release of the vehicle on payment of penalty in terms of
Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021. If such an application is filed
within a period of 30 days from today, the competent authority
shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law within a further period of 30 days from the
date of filing of the application. While fixing the quantum of
penalty, the competent authority would be bound by the Rules
wherein the guidelines have already been provided. Learned
counsel for the petitioner may place the judgments of this Court
before the competent authority.
8. This writ application is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
arvind/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.