Patna High Court
Rahul Jha @ Rahul Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The writ application is dismissed; the petitioner must seek relief under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Jha filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State to release his private vehicle (Regn. No. BR-09AT-9455) seized under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The State contended that the petitioner is involved in three other cases under the same Act, that the vehicle is private, and that he has failed to appear in the ongoing confiscation proceedings. The High Court, without examining the merits, held that a writ is not the appropriate remedy where a specific statutory procedure exists. It directed the petitioner to invoke the remedy provided under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 before the competent authority. The Court further stated that any application made under that rule would be decided within 30 days. Consequently, the writ application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the release of a vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ when a specific statutory remedy under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules is available.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12(A)
Subjects
- mandamus
- vehicle seizure
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- statutory remedy
- writ jurisdiction
- confiscation proceeding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7073 of 2026
======================================================
Rahul Jha @ Rahul Kumar Jha S/o Bipin Jha, R/o Village- Morwa, Ward No.-
13, P.S.- Mushrigharari, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition of Excise, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. Director, Department of Prohibition of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. District Magistrate, Samastipur.
5. Superintendent of Police, Samastipur.
6. Station Head Officer, P.S.- Samastipur (Muffasil), District- Samastipur.
7. Investigating Officer, Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.- 428/25, District-
Samastipur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
======================================================
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. This writ application has been filed seeking the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance a writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to release the vehicle
bearing Registration No.- BR-09AT-9455 in favour
of the petitioner, which is seized in connection with
Samastipur (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 428/25
registered U/S 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7073 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
(ii) For any other relief(s) to which the petitioner
may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.”
3. While it is the case of the petitioner that only 1.5
litre of liquor has been recovered from his private vehicle,
learned counsel for the State has informed that the petitioner is
accused in at least three other cases registered under the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act. Moreover, it is his submission that
the vehicle is a private vehicle and the petitioner has not denied
that the vehicle is in his possession. Confiscation proceeding is
going on but the petitioner has avoided to appear in the
confiscation proceeding.
4. Having regard to the submissions, without going
into the merit of the contentions, we decline to entertain a writ
application directly filed for the remedy applied.
5. The petitioner may seek his remedy in terms of the
statutory provisions under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended upto date) before the
competent authority.
6. If any such application is preferred by the
petitioner, the same will be considered by the competent
authority within a period of 30 days and an appropriate order
shall be passed thereon. The contentions of the parties are left
Patna High Court CWJC No.7073 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
open.
7. This writ application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.