Patna High Court
Zast Logisolutions,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
Section 60 creates a jurisdictional bar only for property used in committing an offence, so the Special Exclusive Excise Court retains jurisdiction to entertain an application for release of the rubber powder, which is not liable to confiscation.
Summary
Zast Logisolutions, a logistics company, sought a writ of mandamus to release a consignment of rubber powder (Blowkem ADCL) that was seized by Bihar police during a liquor recovery operation. The company argued that the rubber powder was not used in any offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and therefore could not be lawfully seized or subjected to penalty under Section 57B. The State contended that the matter should be dealt with by the Special Exclusive Excise Court under the provisions of the Act. The Court held that Section 60 of the Act bars jurisdiction only over property used in committing an offence, and does not preclude the Special Excise Court from entertaining an application for release of goods not liable to confiscation. Consequently, the writ was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to approach the Exclusive Special Judge Excise, West Champaran, for relief, with a note that the goods should be released within fifteen days of filing the application.
Issues considered
- The legality of seizing rubber powder that was not used in any offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 bars the Special Exclusive Excise Court from ordering release of such goods.
- Whether the petitioner can obtain relief through a writ under Article 226 or must approach the Special Excise Court.
- The applicability of Section 57B and Rules 12A/12B for release on payment of penalty to the seized rubber powder.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 503
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — s. 318(4), 3(5)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 41, 56, 57B, 60
Subjects
- seizure
- prohibition act
- excise law
- rubber powder
- illegal seizure
- Section 60
- Section 57B
- Special Exclusive Excise Court
- mandamus
- Article 226
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7349 of 2026
======================================================
Zast Logisolutions, Having its registered office at 309, Varhman Sundar
Plaza, Plot No. 12, Sector 12, Dwarka, P.S. - Dwarka North, New Delhi -
110078, through the authorized signatory namely Amit Kumar Singh, Gender,
Male, aged about 31 years, S/o Jay Bahadur Singh, C/o Gobari, Pratapgarh,
P.O. Dobari, P.S. Antu, District- Pratapgarh, Pin Code- 230502.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Betiah (West Champaran), Bihar.
3. The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition, Bettiah (West Champaran), Bihar.
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Muffasil Police Station, Bettiah (West Champaran),
Bihar.
5. The Superintendent, Prohibition, Bettiah (West Champaran), Bihar.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bettiah (West Champaran), Bihar.
7. The Senior Deputy Collector, Legal Branch, Bettiah (West Champaran),
Bihar.
8. The Additional Collector cum Additional District Magistrate, Bettiah (West
Champaran), Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Narayan, Advocate
Ms. Deeksha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C.-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State (SC-7).
2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
2/18
“(I) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus to release the rubber powder substance
called Blowkem ADCL in favour of the petitioner,
which was in transportation by petitioner's logistic
company was illegally seized by the Respondent
authorities.
(II) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities for
payment of compensation to the Petitioner for the
loss caused by the illegal seizure of the aforesaid
rubber powder substance.
(III) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to
hand over the said seized items to the petitioner.
(IV) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to
pay the cost of litigation and the other costs to the
Petitioner.
(V) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of
mandamus directing action against the erring
officials.
(VI) For granting any other relief/reliefs to the
Petitioner in order to do complete justice in the
facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
3/18
Brief Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged
in providing logistic services such as transportation of goods from
one place to another. Some of the consignments of the petitioner
were to be transported to Nepal.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 15.11.2025, the
petitioner got the consignment order bearing no. ZS1095428 from
M/s Chemico India Pvt. Ltd. (EXPORTER) having its registered
office at Faridabad in the State of Haryana. The said consignment
from Chemico India was meant to be delivered to M/s Goldstar
Stride Limited having their registered office at Shankha Park,
Maharajgunj, Kathmandu, Nepal. The value of the consignment
was Rs. 17,50,000/-. The petitioner states that the said
consignment essentially contained a rubber making powder and
was to be delivered at a location in Kathmandu. It was dispatched
by a truck bearing no. UP53FT5727 which was owned by one
Jitendra. The owner of the truck was himself driving the truck
when it was intercepted on 03.12.2025 by the police personnel
from Muffasil P.S. Bettiah (West Champaran). The vehicle was
found transporting 3100.320 liters of foreign liquor. On this truck
only, the consignment of 280 bags of Blowkem ADCL measuring
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
4/18
7000 kilograms were kept and these were also under
transportation.
5. In connection with the recovery of liquor, one First
Information Report giving rise to Muffasil Bettiah (West
Champaran) P.S. Case No. 576 of 2025 dated 03.12.2025 was
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/ 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) and Sections
30(a)/ 41 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2016’). Copy of the FIR is
Annexure- ‘5’ to the writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s company is neither concerned with the truck in
question nor with the liquors recovered from the said truck. The
company is only concerned with the consignment of rubber
powder which was meant to be delivered in Kathmandu. In
support of the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner has placed on
record the tax invoice receipt bearing No. 204 dated 27.11.2025
(Annexure ‘P/2’), photocopy of the commercial invoice bearing
no. 08092501 dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure ‘P/3’), e-way bill dated
27.11.2025 bearing no. 352134169093 (Annexure ‘P/4’).
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
5/18
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner firm, its manager or director are not accused in the
Muffasil Bettiah (West Champaran) P.S. Case No. 576 of 2025 in
connection with which the material has been seized. The
submission is that the seizure of rubber powder is only illegal as it
is not one of those things and items which are liable to be seized in
terms of Section 57(B) of the Act of 2016. Referring to Sections
56 and 57(B) of the Act of 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that on a bare reading of these provisions, it would appear
that while Section 56 talks of confiscation of seized items and
provides for those items which may be liable to be confiscated,
Section 57(B) talks of things or premises liable to be released upon
penalty. It is submitted that reading of these two provisions would
show that only those animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyances
would be liable to be seized which are being used for committing
any offence punishable under this Act. In this case by no stretch of
imagination, the rubber powder which were the consignment
meant for delivery in Kathmandu (Nepal) may be said to be used
for committing any offence punishable under the Act of 2016. The
petitioner prays for appropriate compensation for unlawful seizure.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
6/18
It is submitted that after seizure the rubber powder are lying on the
vehicle which is standing in the premises of the police station and
with every passing day losing its worth and utility. In such
circumstance, this Court may direct the respondents to release the
rubber powder immediately without any penalty.
8. Learned counsel further submits that since the
consignment in question has not been recommended for
confiscation, the provisions relating to release of the goods and
articles seized in connection with the offence as provided under
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Rules of 2021’) (as amended up-to- date) on payment of
penalty would not be applicable in case of the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
Section 95 of the Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-date), the State
Government has been empowered to make rules to carry out the
purposes of the Act. The Government of Bihar has framed Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021, which has been amended from
time to time (as amended up-to-date). It is submitted that Rule
12A has been inserted vide Amendment Rules, 2021. It provides
for release of vehicle and goods, etc., on payment of penalty.
Learned counsel submits that on bare reading of Rule 12A, it
would appear that it talks of seizure of the vehicle, conveyance,
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
7/18
vessels, animals, etc., by any police or Excise Officer under the
Act. It provides for release of the said vehicles or of the said
conveyance or vehicle upon payment of penalty, as may be
ordered by the Collector or the Officer authorized by law. The
amount of penalty is to be quantified keeping in view the quantity
of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner and the
latest insurance value of the vehicle. The penalty cannot be less
than ten percent of the insured value of the vehicle and more than
Rs. 5 lakhs. Since, in this case, the petitioner is not looking for
release of the vehicle in question and he is only concerned with the
goods which are rubber powder, not connected with any offence
under the Act of 2016, Rule 12A would not be available to the
petitioner for release of the goods. It is his submission that by
virtue of Section 60 of the Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-date),
the Special Exclusive Excise Court’s power to release the
conveyance, vessels, animals, vehicles, etc., seized in connection
with an offence under the Act of 2016 as amended up-to-date has
been taken away. It is submitted that the learned Special Court is
normally not entertaining any application for release of vehicle,
conveyance, goods, etc., even as those are not liable to be seized or
confiscated in connection with an offence under the Act of 2016 as
amended up-to-date. It is for this reason, the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
8/18
approached this Court directly under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
10. It is further submitted that recently this Court, while
hearing CWJC No. 5044 of 2016 (Sonu Kumar Rai vs. The
State of Bihar and Ors.) has taken a view that seizure of a vehicle
which was not carrying any liquor is illegal and in such a case
where the investigating agency has taken a view that the vehicle is
not liable to be seized and no confiscation proceeding has been
recommended against the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle would
be within his rights to approach the learned Special Exclusive
Excise Court for release of the vehicle.
Submissions on behalf of the State
11. Mr. Kumar Alok, learned SC-7 submits that since the
consignment of the petitioner has not been recommended for
confiscation and no confiscation proceeding is pending, the
petitioner may file an appropriate application in the Court of
learned Special Exclusive Excise Judge within whose jurisdiction
the FIR and seizure list have been submitted, seeking release of the
goods. On filing of such application, the Court would be in a
position to call for a report from the investigating officer and on
receipt of the report, an appropriate order may be passed by the
Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
9/18
12. Learned counsel submits that as regards, the
jurisdiction and power of the special Court in the matter of release
of the articles which have been seized in connection with a case
registered under the provisions of the Act of 2016, the legislature
has in their wisdom, made a special provision under Section 60 of
the Act of 2016 whereunder a bar of jurisdiction has been created
on the power of the Court to make any order with regard to the
property under seizure. However, in this case, because the property
in question is not liable to be confiscated and no recommendation
for confiscation has been made, Section 60 of the Act of 2016
would not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking his remedy
before the regular Court i.e. the learned Exclusive Special Judge,
Excise, West Champaran, Bettiah.
13. In course of hearing, this Court has got occasion to
discuss the import of Section 60 of the Act of 2016 vis a vis
Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court invited
the Members of the Bar such as Mr. Prabhu Narayan Sharma,
learned AC to AG and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor to take their views also on this point. This Court would
briefly deal with the provisions of law relating to seizure and
release of the goods/vehicles etc. which have been seized in
connection with the case under the Excise Act.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
10/18
14. Learned counsel for the State as well as the learned
Members at the Bar have expressed their views on the applicability
of Section 60 of the Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-date). It is
their common opinion that in the case of the present nature where
the rubber powder is under transportation on a truck and it is a
consignment having all valid papers, the products such as rubber
powder cannot be said to be involved in facilitating transportation
of illicit liquors. It will not be covered under Section 57B of the
Act of 2016.
Consideration
15. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State as also the learned Advocates at the
Bar, we agree with the opinion expressed by learned counsel for
the State and learned Advocates at the Bar. The erstwhile Section
457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now Section 503 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short ‘BNSS’). Section
503 of BNSS reads as under:-
“503. Procedure by police upon seizure of
property. (1) Whenever the seizure of property
by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate
under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such
property is not produced before a Criminal Court
during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may
make such order as he thinks fit respecting the
disposal of such property or the delivery of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
11/18
property to the person entitled to the possession
thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained,
respecting the custody and production of such
property.
(2) If the person so entitled is known, the
Magistrate may order the property to be
delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as
the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is
unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall,
in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists, and
requiring any person who may have a claim
thereto, to appear before him and establish his
claim within six months from the date of such
proclamation.”
16. The Act of 2016 has been brought into existence to
enforce, implement and promote complete prohibition of liquor
and intoxicants in the territory of the State of Bihar. The Act
provides for a uniform law relating to prohibition and regulation of
liquor and intoxicants, levy of duty thereunder and punishment for
violation of law in the State of Bihar. Section 60 of the Act of 2016
is being extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“60. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation.-
Whenever any liquor, material, still, utensil,
implements or apparatus or any receptacle,
package, any animal cart, vessel, or other
conveyance used in committing any offence, is
seized or detained under this Act, no court shall
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
12/18
have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law for the time being in
force, jurisdiction to make any order with regard
to such property.”
17. In view of the specific bar created under Section 60
of the Act of 2016, it is stated that the Special Exclusive Excise
Courts in the State of Bihar are not entertaining any application for
release of any material, vessels, conveyance, etc. A bare reading of
Section 60 would show that the bar of jurisdiction has been created
in respect of only those materials, packages, vessels, conveyance
which are used in committing any offence and is seized or detained
under the Act of 2016. Section 60 does not create any bar in the
matter of jurisdiction of the Special Exclusive Excise Court to
make any order with regard to any property which is not used in
committing any offence under the Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-
date). The fine line of distinction is required to be made in order to
remove the difficulties and hardships which may be created by
Section 60 of the Act of 2016, if it is not read carefully.
18. At this stage, we take a glance over the provisions
relating to release of vehicles, goods, vessels etc. which are liable
to be confiscated. Rule 12A and Rule 12B of the Rules of 2021 are
being reproduced hereunder:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
13/18
“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 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.
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 31.5.2023.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
14/18
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,
nonrefundable.
(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.
Explanation. – In all pending/ongoing cases of
confiscation/auction of vehicles, the Collector or
the officer authorized by him may give an
opportunity to the existing owner to pay the
aforesaid penalty and get the vehicle released.
Upon satisfaction about ownership and upon
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
15/18
payment of such penalty, the ongoing
confiscation/auction proceeding may be dropped
and the vehicle released.]
1
[12B. Release of Premises on Payment of
Penalty: – (1) If any premises or part thereof has
been seized or sealed by any police or excise officer
under the Act, then in terms of section-57B (2) of the
Act, the Collector or an officer authorized by him,
upon receipt of an application in Form V from the
owner of the said premises, may release or unseal
the said premises or part thereof 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 premises or the owner is not coming
forward, the Collector or the officer authorized by
him shall, after waiting for 15 days from the date of
seizure/sealing, proceed to confiscate the premises as
per the provisions of the Act.
(2) 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,
location of the premises and the quantum of
intoxicant recovered while deciding the quantum of
fine to be paid by the individual. However, the fine
shall not be less than Rs. one Lakh in any case.
In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond 15
days from the date of seizure/sealing and if during
this period, the accused/owner does not pay up the
penalty he shall proceed with the
confiscation/auction.
1. Ins. by Amdt. Rules, 2022, vide Notifn. No. 2458, dated 5.4.2022.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
16/18
(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
premises shall not be in the public interest, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him shall
proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said
premises or part thereof and its subsequent
auction/disposal.
(4) Such penalty shall be, regardless of the
outcome of the trial if any, before the Special
Court, nonrefundable.
(5) The owner of the Premises shall, after the
release of the premises, allow the inspection of the
premises as and when desired by the authorities.
Explanation: – In all pending/ongoing cases of
confiscation/auction of premises, the Collector or
the officer authorized by him may give an
opportunity to the existing owner to pay the
aforesaid penalty and get the premises released.
Upon satisfaction of ownership and upon payment
of such penalty, the ongoing confiscation/auction
proceeding may be dropped and the premises
released.”
19. On going through these provisions, it is evident that
these rules are applicable in respect of the things or premises
which are liable to be released upon penalty as envisaged under
Section 57B of the Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-date). In a case
of the present kind where the product under seizure is rubber
powder which is not liable to be seized or confiscated and no
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
17/18
confiscation proceeding has been recommended, we find no reason
to take a view that the owner of the goods would be liable to pay
penalty for its release.
20. We are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction
of the Exclusive Special Excise Courts to entertain an application
for release of such goods, vehicles etc. which are not used in
committing any offence under the Act of 2016, hence, not liable to
be seized or confiscated, cannot be ousted by virtue of Section 60
of the Act of 2016. It is only when the things or premises which
are used for committing any offence punishable under the Act of
2016 and has been seized by any police officer or Excise Officer
may be released on payment of penalty. By virtue of sub-section
(3) of Section 57B of the Act of 2016, if the person concerned does
not pay the penalty, then the Collector shall proceed to confiscate
the said animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and premises
as per Section 58.
21. In the present case, we conclude that the rubber
powder in form of a consignment duly supported by all valid
documents has not been used for committing the offence under the
Act of 2016 (as amended up-to-date). For arguments sake, even if
it is found that the liquors were kept concealed below/under the
consignment bags of rubber powder, it would be a far-fetched
Patna High Court CWJC No.7349 of 2026 dt.15-05-2026
18/18
imagination to say that the rubber powder was used for committing
the offence. In fact, we say so only for a clarity, the fact remains
that in this case, there is no recommendation for confiscation of
the rubber powder.
22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are
of the considered opinion that the remedy of the petitioner would
lie before the Exclusive Special Judge Excise, West Champaran,
Bettiah. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the
Court seeking release of the goods in question. If such an
application is filed together with the papers of consignment, the
same will be considered on its own merit by the learned Court. The
application shall not be rejected on the ground of bar of
jurisdiction. Keeping in view that the rubber powder is lying under
open sky and losing its utility day by day, an appropriate order
shall be passed thereon within a period of fifteen (15) days from
the date of filing of the application.
23. This writ application stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/Sushma-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.05.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.