The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the BIS standards to determine the presence of alcohol in a non-alcoholic beverage and its conformity to the law.

Birendra Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Mr. Prashant Kumar Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been brought for quashing of the FIR of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 46 of 2017, registered on 09.02.2017 for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") vide Annexure-2. Further prayer is for a direction to the respondents to de-seal the premise of the petitioners which was sealed in connection with the aforesaid case and to restore the possession along with all the articles stored therein. Third prayer is for restraining the respondents from interfering in the trade of the petitioners in the garb of regulating the business in exercise of power conferred under the Act.

3. By way of interim measure, this Court had directed the respondents to de-seal the sealed premise by order dated 17.07.2017 and, subsequently, by order dated 01.08.2017, this Court directed interim release of the seized goods in favour of the petitioners on execution of the referred surety bond.

4. The State of Bihar and other respondents challenged the aforesaid interim order before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1658-1659 of 2017. The appeal was disposed of on 15th September, 2017, with following relevant observations recorded in para 4 and 5 of the order:-

"4. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel based on the Notification dated 24.01.2017 issued under Section 24(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, we are of the view that the matter needs to be finally decided by the High Court expeditiously. Therefore, we dispose of these appeals with a request to the High Court to dispose of the main writ petition, being Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 627 of 2017 expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from today.

5. We make it clear that it will be open to the respondents, in case they choose so, to amend the pleadings as well within two weeks from today. Till the writ petition is disposed of, the implementation of the interim order passed by the High Court for de-sealing and releasing of goods shall be deferred."

5. After the aforesaid order, the petitioners (the respondents before the Supreme Court) filed I.A. No. 2088 of 2017 for addition of two more reliefs which are as follows:-

"(a) To hold that notification dated 24.01.2017 issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 24(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is inapplicable in the facts of the case.

(b) For a direction upon the respondent-authority to pay appropriate compensation along with interest which has been caused due to discriminatory action of the respondent-authority."

6. The addition of the aforesaid prayer was allowed by order dated 07.11.2017.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of Bihar advanced wrong statement before the Supreme Court regarding applicability of the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act or of the notification dated 24.01.2017 because those provisions and notifications relates to power of the State to grant licence etc.

8. It was conceded by Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that notification dated 24.01.2017 issued under Section 24(1) of the Act is not relevant for this purpose as the notification relates to grant etc. of licence for the referred purpose. Moreover, there is statement on oath of the respondents, in para 8 of the reply to the I.A. No. 2088 of 2017 filed by the petitioners, stating therein that the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act is not applicable in the present case as the petitioners are not holding any licence under the Act.

9. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship concern and petitioner No. 2 is its sole proprietor. The concern is registered with the Sales Tax Depart