Patna High Court
Satyendra Narayan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first avail the statutory remedy under Rule 12B before seeking a writ, and therefore the writ application was not entertained.
Summary
The petitioner, Satyendra Narayan Singh, sought a writ of mandamus directing various excise authorities to unseal rooms of his house that had been sealed in connection with an excise case, and also sought to restrain confiscation, protect the premises, and obtain compensation. The High Court noted that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 provide a specific statutory remedy (Rule 12B) for applying to have seized premises unsealed, which the petitioner had not pursued. Since the petitioner bypassed this statutory remedy, the Court declined to entertain the writ application. The Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an application under Rule 12B within 30 days, after which the competent authority must decide within another 30 days. The decision emphasizes the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court for extraordinary relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for unsealing of premises without first invoking the statutory remedy under Rule 12B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021?
- Whether the court can entertain a writ petition when the statutory remedy for unsealing has not been exhausted?
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021
- Excise Act, 2016
Subjects
- unsealing
- writ of mandamus
- excise seizure
- statutory remedy
- Rule 12B
- prohibition law
- compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6438 of 2026
======================================================
Satyendra Narayan Singh Son of Kamta Prasad Singh, Resident of New By
Pass Road, Ashochak, Nandlalchhapra, Piost- Khemnichak, P.S.- Ramkrishna
Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar represented through Principle Secretary, Excise and
Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, having its office at 176D, 1st
floor, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 800015.
2. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar Excise, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Superintendent of Excise, Madhya Nisedh, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Investigating Officer of Excise, P.S. Patna Case No. 587 of 2026.
6. Sonu Kumar, Son of Binod Mistri, Resident of near R.B. Vidyalay,
Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.- Kadamkuna, District- Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Chandra Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv.
Mr. Veermani Kumari
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Kr. Yadav, SC-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 22-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking the
following reliefs:-
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of
Mandamus for a direction to the respondent
authorities to unsealed the sealed rooms of the
petitioner's house (one room of 4th floor and one
room of ground floor), which was sealed in
connection with Excise P.S. Patna Case No. 587 of
2026.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6438 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
2/3
(ii) To hold that if the confiscation
proceeding will start in the case that will be totally
illegal, unwanted, improper in the facts and
circumstances of the case which will be discussed
latter on in the pleadings.
(iii) For holding that if the proceedings of
the confiscation of the house /room of the
petitioner which has been sealed allegedly
recovering prohibited foreign liquor will be
initiated that is totally illegal, as the duty cast upon
the Collector is that prior to initiation of an
proceeding or confiscation of any good, material
etc. he has to record his satisfaction that an offence
under this act has been committed which the
Collector has failed to do so.
(iv) For restraining the respondent
authorities from taking over the aforesaid house
/room, destroy/selling / transferring or using the
same in manner whatsoever during the pendency of
the case.
(v) For a direction to the respondent
authorities to protect the house / room of the
petitioner which has been sealed for recovering of
alleged liquor.
(vi) For a direction to the respondent
authorities to pay an adequate and exemplary
compensation to the petitioner in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(vii) Any other relief/reliefs, order /
orders, direction /directions for which the petitioner
is legally and validly entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. On perusal of the writ application, it appears that
the petitioner has directly moved this Court for the reliefs
prayed. In the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as
amended up-to-date), Rule 12B provides a remedy to the
petitioner to apply for unsealing of the premises seized or sealed
by any police or excise officer under the Bihar Prohibition and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6438 of 2026(2) dt.22-06-2026
3/3
Excise Act, 2016. The statutory remedy is equally efficacious
but the petitioner has not applied for the same.
4. In the circumstances, we do not entertain the writ
application. It is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to avail his remedy, if so advised, in accordance with law before
the Competent Authority.
5. If such an application is preferred by the petitioner
within a period of 30 days from today, the same shall be
considered by the Competent Authority within further period of
30 days. The Competent Authority shall pass an appropriate
order keeping in view the guidelines already provided in the
Statute and the Rules.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Abhishek/-
SUSHMA2/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.