Patna High Court
Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The penalty under Rule 12A is a mandatory minimum of 10% of the insured value of the vehicle and cannot be reduced below that, though the Court may fix it at the minimum and order release upon payment.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar challenged a memo requiring payment of 11% of his vehicle's value to secure its release after 180ml of whisky was seized from the vehicle, arguing he was not involved in the offence. The State contended that under Rule 12A of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Rules, 2021, a penalty of at least 10% of the insured value is mandatory for any seized conveyance. The Court examined the wording of Rule 12A, noting that the penalty must consider the quantity of intoxicant but cannot be less than 10% of the vehicle's insured value. It held that the statutory minimum is mandatory and cannot be reduced below 10%, though the Court may fix the penalty at that minimum. Accordingly, the Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to levy a penalty of exactly 10% of the vehicle's valuation and release the vehicle upon payment and proof of ownership. The writ application was disposed with this direction.
Issues considered
- What is the minimum penalty prescribed under Rule 12A of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Rules, 2021 for the release of a seized vehicle?
- Can the Court lower the statutory penalty below the 10% minimum when the owner was not personally involved in the offence?
- Whether the petitioner, as the owner, is liable to pay the penalty despite the vehicle being used by a friend.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act — s. 57B(1)
- Bihar Excise and Prohibition Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- penalty
- Rule 12A
- minimum penalty
- owner liability
- writ jurisdiction
- confiscation
- release of vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5530 of 2026
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Son of Ramakant Sharma, Resident of Lari, P.S. Arwal,
District Arwal, Bihar-804421.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Assistant Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Station House Officer, Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy-1, SC 13
Mr. Hitesh Sumar, AC to SC 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the communication as contained in Memo No.
111 dated 11.03.2026 issued by the Assistant Commissioner,
Excise, Patna in Confiscation Case No. 160/2025-26.
3. By the impugned communication, the petitioner has
been informed, the owner of the vehicle in question, to get his
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
2/6
vehicle released on payment of 11% of the value of the vehicle
i.e., Rs.73,150/- failing which the vehicle shall be subjected to
acquisition and auction sale.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, but he was not present in
the vehicle when it was intercepted and from the rear seat of the
vehicle 180ml of 8 PM tetra packs of “Blend of Scotch and
Indian Grain Whisky” were allegedly recovered. It is submitted
that the vehicle was being driven by one Rajnish Kumar, who
happened to be a friend/distant relative of the petitioner and on
his request the petitioner had given him the vehicle for
temporary use.
5. Learned counsel submits that considering the
meager quantity of liquor, vehicle may be ordered to be released
without payment of penalty. Her submission is that since the
petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and the vehicle
was given to his friend in good faith, he may not be made liable
for payment of penalty.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that unlike a commercial vehicle when the vehicle is
given to a driver to transport commercial goods from one State
to another or from one place to another covering long distance,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
3/6
it is a case in which a private vehicle has been given to a friend
or relative, who was driving the vehicle and in course of that use
liquor has been found in the vehicle. Admittedly, the liquor was
found in the vehicle therefore, the vehicle is liable to be seized
and proceeding towards confiscation of the vehicle has to take
place.
7. It is submitted that no fault may be found with the
communication as contained in Memo No. 111 dated
11.03.2026, because a bare reading of Rule 12A of the Bihar
Excise and Prohibition Rules, 2021 (as amended up-to-date)
would show that there cannot be a penalty less than 10% of the
valuation of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that although
the petitioner relies on the Co-ordinate Bench judgments of this
Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta vs. State of Bihar
(CWJC No. 15342 of 2024), it would appear that the said order
has been passed saying that the same has been done in exercise
of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. However, his submission
would be that no mandamus may be issued against the statute. If
the rule provides for penalty not less than 10%, this Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction may not substitute the rule and
form an opinion in violation of the statutory provision.
8. We agree with the submissions advanced on behalf
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
4/6
of the State. Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 reads as under:
“2[12A. Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. On
Payment of Penalty.- (1) if any vehicles,
conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has been seized by
any police or excise officer under the Act, then in
terms of Section 57B (1) of the Act, the Collector
or an officer authorized by him upon receipt of an
application in Form IV by the owner of the said
conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said
conveyance or vehicle upon payment of such
penalty as may be ordered by the Collector or the
officer authorized by him.
Provided, where it is not possible to ascertain the
owner of the vehicle or the owner is not coming to
claim the vehicle, the Collector or the officer
authorized by him, after waiting for 15 days from
the date of seizure, shall proceed to confiscate
and auction the vehicle as per the provisions of
the Act.
3
[(2) The amount of penalty shall be as decided
by the Collector or the Officer authorized by him.
While imposing the penalty, he shall have due
regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered,
involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest
insurance value of the vehicle. In no case, the
penalty should be less than 10% of the insured
value of the vehicle and more than Rs. 5 lakhs.
The insured value is the value of the vehicle as
assessed by the insurance company. Where, the
insured value is not available or the Collector or
2. Ins. By Amdt. Rules 2022, vide Notifn. No. 2458, dated 5.4.2022.
3. Subs. By Amdt. Rules, 2023, vide Notifn. No. 3671, dated 31.05.2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
5/6
the Officer authorized by him has reason to
believe that the vehicle is undervalued, he shall
get the valuation done by the District Transport
Officer.
In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond
15 days from the date of seizure and if during this
period, the accused/owner does not pay up the
penalty, he shall proceed with the
confiscation/auction.]
(3) Notwithstanding above, if on a report by
police officer or excise officer, the Collector or
the officer authorized by him is satisfied that
releasing the vehicle or conveyance shall not be
in the public interest, he shall proceed ahead with
the confiscation of the said vehicle or conveyance
and its subsequent auction/disposal.
(4) Where the conveyance is such that its
valuation/insurance is not possible, the Collector
or the officer authorized by him shall impose
such fine as he deems fit. While imposing such
fine, the Collector or the officer authorized by
him shall have due regard to the economic status
of the individual, nature of his involvement in the
crime and the quantum of intoxicant recovered.
(5) Such penalty shall be, regardless of the
outcome of the trial if any, before the Special
Court, non-refundable.
(6) The owner of the vehicle/conveyance shall,
after the release of the vehicle/conveyance,
produce the vehicle/conveyance as and when
required by the authorities.”
9. It is evident on a bare reading of the
aforementioned rule that the penalty is required to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.5530 of 2026(2) dt.15-05-2026
6/6
determined by taking into consideration various factors, one of
which will be the quantum of the liquor recovered from the
vehicle, but having said so the provision has made it clear that
in no case the penalty shall be less than 10% of the valuation of
the vehicle. The manner in which this provision is couched, it
has to be taken as a mandatory provision. It would, therefore,
not be appropriate to tinker with the provision of law.
Considering, however, the entire facts and circumstances, we
direct the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Patna to keep the
penalty amount at the minimum and it should not be more than
10% of the valuation of the vehicle. On payment of 10% of the
valuation of vehicle, the vehicle in question shall be released in
favour of the petitioner on production of documents of
ownership.
10. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of
with the aforesaid direction.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/prachi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.