Patna High Court
Alina MajumdarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The Court quashed the excessive penalty of Rs 4,97,532 and the unauthorized 3% surcharge, directing that a reasonable penalty of Rs 5,000 be paid for the release of the vehicle.
Summary
Alina Majumdar filed a writ petition seeking release of her vehicle seized by excise officials after 3.5 litres of illicit liquor were found in it. The District Magistrate ordered release only upon payment of a penalty of Rs 4,97,532 and an additional 3% surcharge, invoking Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023. The petitioner argued that the penalty was excessive, ignored the small quantity of liquor, her lack of involvement, and the economic status, and that the 3% surcharge had no statutory basis. The High Court examined Rule 12A(2) and Rule 12A(4), noting the magistrate had not considered the required factors and had no power to impose the extra surcharge. The Court quashed the original penalty and the 3% surcharge, directing a reasonable penalty of Rs 5,000 and ordering the vehicle’s release upon payment and proof of ownership.
Issues considered
- Whether the penalty imposed under Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 is valid given the quantity of liquor recovered, the owner's involvement, and the insured value of the vehicle.
- Whether the additional 3% surcharge imposed by the District Magistrate is authorized under the Bihar Prohibition Excise Act, 2016 and the Rules.
- Whether the District Magistrate exceeded his statutory powers in fixing the penalty.
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- excise law
- penalty assessment
- proportionality
- additional surcharge
- Rule 12A
- Bihar Prohibition Excise Act
- writ petition
- release of seized vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.834 of 2026
======================================================
Alina Majumdar Wife of Avijit Majumdar, Resident of Village Karinamai
Housing State, PS Bidhan Nagar, District Kolkata, State West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Excise Department.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua).
3. The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur (Bhabua).
4. The Superintendent of Excise, Kaimur (Bhabua).
5. The Station House Officer, Excise, Kaimur, Bhabua.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Sonu Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, AC to AAG-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 23-02-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for
setting aside the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned
District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with
Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 362 of 2025 whereby
and whereunder it has been directed that the vehicle in question
be released upon payment of penalty to the tune of Rs.
4,97,532/- as also deposit of further 3% of the penalty amount
i.e. a sum of Rs. 14,926/- in the account of BSBCL. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
2/9
petitioner has also prayed for release of her KIYA CARENS
vehicle bearing Registration No. WB08P2122, Chassis No.
MZBGC813 MPN069752, Engine No. D4FANM752610 in her
favor, inasmuch as she is the rightful owner of the vehicle in
question.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the
present petition are that on 10.10.2025 the prohibition officials
including house guards were stationed at Mohania Police
Chauki and were conducting search of vehicle for illicit liquor
and during the course thereof, the aforesaid vehicle in question
was intercepted, in which five persons were sitting and upon
search being made 3.5 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from
a bag kept under the middle seat of the said vehicle. Thereafter,
Kaimur (Prohibition) Case No. 640 of 2025 dated 11.10.2025
was lodged under Section 30(a), 32(1)(3) and 41(i)(ii) of the
Bihar Prohibition Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Act, 2016”) against five persons including the husband of the
petitioner namely, Abhijit Majumdar.
3. The aforesaid FIR led to initiation of Excise
(Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 362/2025, wherein the learned
District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabua has passed an order dt.
01.11.2025, levying a penalty of a sum of Rs. 4,97,532/- apart
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
3/9
from directing for deposit of further 3% of the penalty amount
i.e. a sum of Rs. 14,926/- in the account of Bihar State
Beverages Cooperation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the
BSBCL”), for release of the vehicle in question by exercising
the powers conferred under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Rules 2023”).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that though the Ld. District Magistrate, Kaimur at
Bhabua, by the impugned order dated 01.11.2025 has directed
for release of the vehicle in terms of the Rules 12 (A) (II) of the
Rules, 2023 on payment of penalty of 50% of the insurance
value along with deposit of further 3% of the penalty amount in
the account of BSBCL but the same is exorbitant and
unreasonable inasmuch as the quantity of liquor recovered from
the vehicle is meager i.e. 3.5 litres and moreover, admittedly the
petitioner was not traveling in the car at the time of seizure of
illicit liquor from the vehicle in question. It is further submitted
that neither the petitioner is having any role in the alleged
occurrence nor she is having any criminal antecedent, hence a
sympathetic view be taken and the vehicle in question be
directed to be released upon payment of a reasonable amount,
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
4/9
considering the fact that meager quantity of 3.5 litres of illicit
liquor has been recovered from the vehicle in question.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the learned District Magistrate,
Kaimur at Bhabua has exercised his powers under Rule 12(A) of
the Rules, 2023 and has rightly passed the order dated
01.11.2025, however he has not been able to show from the
counter affidavit filed in the present case that either the
petitioner is having any role in the alleged occurrence or she has
any previous history of indulging in trade of illicit liquor.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
7. At this juncture, we would like to reproduce
Rule 12A (2) of the Rules, 2023 herein below:-
"Rule 12A (2) (Release of Vehicles,
Conveyance etc. on Payment of
Penalty):-
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
5/9
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 Dist. 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."
8. A bare perusal of Rule 12A (2) of the Rules,
2023 would show that while imposing penalty the quantity of
intoxicant recovered is required to be considered, however in the
present case, we find that this aspect of the matter has not been
taken into account in the impugned order dated 01.11.2025.
Nonetheless, at this juncture we would like to refer to an order
dated 26.11.2025, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CWJC No. 14928 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. the State
of Bihar & Ors.), wherein it has been held as under:-
“In absence of any specific ground that
the vehicle was in regular use for
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
6/9
transportation of liquors or that the
owner of the vehicle was found involved
in transportation of the liquors and/or
there are multiple cases of similar nature
against the owner or the vehicle,
imposition of the penalty to the extent of
75 per cent of the insured value is an
onerous condition and it amounts to
virtually creating a situation where huge
hardship may be caused to an owner of
the vehicle in getting release of the
vehicle."
9. Yet another aspect of the matter is that Rule
12A(4) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules,
2022 provides that while imposing 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, however in the present
case we do not find that such exercise has been done by the
learned District Magistrate while passing the impugned order
dated 01.11.2025.
10. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case as also taking into account the fact
that meager quantity of 3.5 litres of illicit liquor has been
recovered, which is also one of the factors required to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
7/9
considered while imposing penalty for release of the vehicle, as
has been provided under Rule 12(A) (2) of the Rules, 2023 and
Rule12(A)(IV) of the Rules, 2022, we are of the view that the
penalty imposed by the learned District Magistrate, Kaimur at
Bhabua is exorbitant and unreasonable. Thus, the order dated
01.11.2025 passed in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Excise Case
No. 362 of 2025, to the extent of levy of penalty to the tune of
Rs. 4,97,532/- is quashed. Nonetheless, we are of the considered
opinion that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be a reasonable amount
by way of penalty.
11. The other aspect of the matter is whether the
confiscating authority has the power to impose additional 3%
penalty over and above the penalty amount. In the present case,
the confiscating authority has directed the petitioner to deposit
additional 3% of the penalty amount, i.e. a sum of Rs.14,926/- in
the account of BSBCL, which in any view of the matter is
illegal, inasmuch as the confiscating authority under the
provisions contained in the Act, 2016, as amended up to date has
no power to impose an additional 3% penalty over and above
the penalty amount. We further find that the confiscating
authority, on its own cannot impose penalty over and above
what has been sanctioned by law. In this connection, reference
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
8/9
be had to a judgment dated 11.12.2025 passed by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Shantanu Kumar vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 18561 of 2025).
12. In view of the law laid down in the case of
Shantanu Kumar (supra) as also considering the fact that the
Act, 2016 does not mandate imposition of additional penalty
over and above what has been sanctioned by law, we find that
imposition of 3% additional penalty is wholly unjust and
improper as also is an act of undue enrichment caused to a
government company, which is not permissible under the law. In
such view of the matter, the additional penalty of 3% to the tune
of Rs.14,926/-, imposed vide order dated 01.11.2025, passed by
the learned District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua, is also set
aside.
13. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner would be depositing a sum
of Rs. 5,000/- with the competent authority/ authorized officer
within a period of four weeks from today and shall make
available the documents of ownership of the vehicle in question
before the competent authority. In such view of the matter, we
direct that in case the aforesaid amount is deposited before the
competent authority/authorized officer within a period of four
Patna High Court CWJC No.834 of 2026 dt.23-02-2026
9/9
weeks from today, the vehicle in question shall be released in
favor of the petitioner after being satisfied with the documents
relating to ownership of the vehicle within a period of one week,
thereafter.
14. The writ petition stands allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
alok/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2026.
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…