Patna High Court
Vinod MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must first avail the statutory remedy under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
Summary
Vinod Mahto filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking the release of his E‑Rickshaw, which had been seized under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, after 49 litres of liquor were recovered. The Court observed that the petitioner had bypassed the statutory remedy provided under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, which allows an application for release and penalty determination. Since an alternative remedy was available, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to file an application under the said rule, after which the competent authority would decide within 30 days. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any order for release of the vehicle.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle is maintainable when a specific statutory remedy under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules is available.
- Whether the High Court can entertain the petition in lieu of the alternative remedy prescribed by law.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12(A)
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- seizure of vehicle
- excise law
- alternative statutory remedy
- procedural law
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5409 of 2026
======================================================
Vinod Mahto Son of Ram Sagar Mahto, Resident of Village- Bhuwali Tola,
Khawajepur, P.S. Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Department of
prohibition and Excise, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. The Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj.
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Gopalganj Police Station, Dist. Gopalganj.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhramveer, Advocate
For the State : Mr. R.P.N. Tiwari, Advocate, AC to SC 25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner in the present writ application is seeking
for a direction upon the respondents to release his seized vehicle
i.e. Unique E-Rickshaw bearing Registration No. BR28ER6192,
Chassis No. MD9XBRKEDJH209351, which is seized in
connection with Kuchaikot P.S. Case No. 118 of 2026 dated
08.03.2026 under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. It seems that the petitioner has directly approached
this Court for release of the E-Rickshaw from which 49 liters of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5409 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/2
liquor is said to have been recovered.
4. This Court refuses to entertain a writ application
filed without availing the alternative statutory remedy already
available to the petitioner.
5. If the petitioner applies for the statutory remedy of
Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as
amended up-to-date), the same will be considered by the
competent authority under the rules and an appropriate order
thereon shall be passed within 30 days from the date of filing of
the application. While fixing the amount of penalty, the
competent authority shall keep in mind the factors provided for
this purpose under the rules.
6. The writ application stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
ritwika/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.