Back
2021 Supreme(Pat) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Dhanbabu Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 9594 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Amal Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Kumar Manish, Advocate
Timely conclusion of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is crucial to prevent loss to the State due to the depreciation in the re-sale value of seized vehicles.
Headnote:
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - Seizure of Vehicle - Section 30(a), 41(1) - 58, 92, 93 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes. The delay in concluding the proceedings was noted to cause loss to the State due to the depreciation in the re-sale value of the seized vehicle.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of a seized vehicle in connection with an offense under section 30(a), 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court referred to previous case laws and issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in concluding the confiscation proceeding was causing the seized vehicle to lose its road worthiness and depreciate in re-sale value, resulting in ultimate loss to the State.
Issues: Delay in conclusion of confiscation proceeding and its impact on the seized vehicle's value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely conclusion of confiscation proceedings to prevent loss to the State due to the depreciation in the re-sale value of the seized vehicle.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to make themselves available before the appropriate authority and for the authority to take appropriate action within the specified time schedule. The court reserved liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to other remedies if needed.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, C.J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"For direction to the Respondents to release the four wheeler vehicle Mahindra Belero Pickup Van bearing Registration No. BR-04GA-3502 in favour of the petitioner which has been seized in connection with Special Case No. 23/2020 arising out of Galgalia P.S. Case No. 02/2020 dated 21.01.2020 instituted for the offence under section 30(a), 41(1) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 22.12.2020, passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9592 of 2020 (Dharmendra Mahto versus The State of Bihar).
4. In the case of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court has referred and discussed all the previous case laws on the subject. Some of the judgments rendered in similar matters are as under:-
(i) Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,2020 3 PLJR 927.
(ii) Umesh Sah Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.,2020 3 PLJR 931.
(iii) Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,2020 3 PLJR 935.
The operating part of the judgment in the case of Md. Shaukat Ali are being briefly reproduced as under:-
"(a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.
(b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself available in the office of the concerned appropriate authority empowered under Section 58 of the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on 24.01.2020 at 10:30 A.M.
(c) We further direct the appropriate authority to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for the authority to take such measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek damages in accordance with law and have appropriate proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the certified copy of the order shall be made available to the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed. For future guidance, where parties have not approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-
The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three months time is sufficient enough for any authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with confiscatory proceedings."
5. The aforesaid directions were reiterated in the case of Umesh Sah (supra). Once again in the case of Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah (supra) this Court dealt in detail the various provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act or the Act of 2016).
6. In the recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court has issued further directions:-
"It is seen that till date, in large number of cases, position about conclusion of the proceedings, be it under Section 58, 92 or 93 remains the same.
We further direct that all proceedings under Section 58 must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of appearance
