Urmila DeviversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.789 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Urmila Devi Wife of Awdhesh Singh, Resident of Village- Mahuar, P.S-
     Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Bihar Bihar.
2.   The District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabua).
3.   The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabua).
4.   The Superintendent of Prohibition Excise, Kaimur (Bhabua).
5.   The Station House Officer, Mohaniya Police Station Kaimur (Bhabua).

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr.Sarfraz Ahmad, Adv.
                                  Mr. Sonu Singh, Adv.
     For the State          :     Mr.Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

      Date : 28-01-2026

               The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the

      order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the learned Court of

      Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Excise

      (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 12/2025, whereby and

      whereunder the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Mahindra Swaraj

      Tractor bearing Registration No. BR45GA1020 has been

      confiscated and directions have been issued to auction sale the

      same in connection with Kaimur (Prohibition) P.S.Case No.

      431/2025 dated 23.6.2025, registered under Section 30(a), 32(i),
Patna High Court CWJC No.789 of 2026 dt.28-01-2026
                                           2/4




         32(ii), 41(i) and 41(ii) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,

         2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2016”) against

         unknown persons on account of recovery of 10.20 liters of illicit

         liquor from the said vehicle as also 262 liters of illicit liquor

         from an open space.

         2.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

         meager quantity of illicit liquor has been recovered from the

         vehicle of the petitioner and moreover, the confiscating

         authority, in the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, has not

         recorded any reason to the effect that releasing the vehicle in

         question shall not be in public interest, hence the impugned

         order dated 18.10.2025 is illegal and fit to be set aside. In this

         connection, reference has been made to a judgment dated

         13.11.2025, passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court

         in CWJC No. 10777 of 2025 (Santosh Kumar vs. The State of

         Bihar & Ors.). Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the

         petitioner is not averse to the idea of challenging the said order

         dated 18.10.2025, by filing an appeal under Section 92 of the

         Act, 2016, as amended up to date, however he submits that the

         appellate authority be directed to consider the submissions to be

         pleaded in the appeal by the petitioner as also take into account

         the aforesaid judgment rendered in the case of Santosh Kumar
Patna High Court CWJC No.789 of 2026 dt.28-01-2026
                                           3/4




         (supra) and pass a reasoned and a speaking order within a

         stipulated time frame.

         3.      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

         we deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioner to

         challenge the aforesaid order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the

         learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in

         connection with Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No.

         12/2025, by filing appropriate appeal and in case such an appeal

         is filed within a period of four weeks from today, annexing the

         aforesaid judgment, passed in the case of Santosh Kumar

         (supra), the appellate authority shall consider the same on

         merits, without being impeded by the issue of limitation and

         pass a reasoned and a speaking order, considering all the

         submissions made by the petitioner in the appeal as also

         considering the effect of the aforesaid judgment rendered by the

         learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh

         Kumar (supra) within a period of six weeks, thereafter.

         4.      It is made clear that in case appropriate appeal is filed

         within a period of four weeks from today, the vehicle in

         question shall not be put to auction sale till the final disposal of

         the appeal.

         5.      At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
             Patna High Court CWJC No.789 of 2026 dt.28-01-2026
                                                        4/4




                      referred to explanation of Section 12A of the Bihar Prohibition

                      and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which is reproduced

                      hereinbelow:-

                               “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 payment of such penalty, the ongoing
                               confiscation/auction proceeding may be dropped and the
                               vehicle released.”

                      6.      In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the

                      petitioner submits that in case auction of the vehicle has not

                      been done, the petitioner be also granted liberty to approach the

                      concerned Collector or the officer authorized by him for the

                      purposes of paying penalty and getting the vehicle in question

                      released. Liberty, so sought, is also granted.

                      7.      Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off

                      on the aforesaid terms.


                                              (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)


                                              ( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          3.2.2026
Transmission Date       NA