Patna High Court
RajanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first approach the District Magistrate or the Confiscating Authority under Rule 12A, and therefore the writ of mandamus cannot be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajan, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the release of his truck (Reg. No. HP38H-0768) that had been seized under IPC sections 272/273 and the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (sections 30(a) and 41(i)). The truck was seized in a police case and remained in police custody. The petitioner had not filed an application under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, which is the prescribed statutory remedy for release of confiscated vehicles. The Court held that the petitioner must first approach the District Magistrate or the Confiscating Authority under the said rule, and therefore could not entertain a writ of mandamus. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file the statutory application within one month, barred auction of the vehicle during that period, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to release a seized vehicle when the petitioner has not complied with the statutory requirement of filing an application under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
- Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bars the High Court from entertaining the writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 41(i)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
Subjects
- seizure
- motor vehicle
- mandamus
- statutory remedy
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Indian Penal Code
- writ jurisdiction
- release of property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5011 of 2026
======================================================
Rajan Son of Mangat Ram @Mangat, Resident of Village- House No. 225,
Ward No. 6, Tehsila Gurdaspur, P.S.-Shehzada, Nangal, Gurdaspur, Panjab.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.
3. The Superintendent of Excise East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari.
5. The Office Incharge Prohibition and Excise Police Station, East Champaran,
Motihari.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, AC to GP-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 24-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to GP-23 for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application is
seeking the following reliefs:-
“(a) For issue an appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions including a
writ preferably in the nature of mandamus for
commanding the respondents to release the
vehicle/Truck bearing Registration No.
HP38H-0768, Chassis No. MAT466422
H3B82457, Engine No. 71B62458422 in
favour of the petitioner, who is owner of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5011 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
2/3
said Truck seized in Mehsi P.S. Case No.
272/23 under Section 272/273 of the IPC and
section 30(a), 41(i) of Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 lying in the premises of
police station and subject to delay by
furnishing fine the satisfaction of learned
District Magistrate, East Champaran,
Motihari.
(b) Any other relief/reliefs to which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. It appears on perusal of the records that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR but during course of
investigation, the police found that the petitioner is the owner of
the vehicle. The petitioner has not approached the competent
authority in terms of 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)’) for release of
the vehicle in question.
4. Learned AC to GP-23 for the State submits that the
petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy before the District
Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari or the Confiscating
Authority having jurisdiction.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated
hereinabove and the pleadings on the record, as also keeping in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5011 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026
3/3
view the Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as amended up to
date), we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the District
Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari or the Confiscating
Authority, as the case may be, within a period of one month
from today.
6. If any such application is preferred within the given
period, the said authority shall consider the same and pass an
appropriate order within two weeks from the date of filing of the
application.
7. During such time, the vehicle in question shall not
be auction sold.
8. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…