Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Pat) 81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Pramod Kumar S/o-Surech @ Suresh Vanvasi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Prohibition & Registration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4030 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate Mr.Mayank Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Vivek Prasad, G.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, with specific timeframes provided for the same.

Headnote:
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act - Seizure of Vehicle - Sections 56, 58, 92, 93 - The court issued several directions for the release of seized vehicles and the initiation/conclusion of confiscatory proceedings within specific timeframes. The Act prohibits the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase, and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor. Section 56 provides for the confiscation of items used in the commission of such offenses. Section 58 vests the power to issue an order of confiscation with the District Collector/Authorized officer. The court emphasized the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings and directed the authorities to adhere to specific timeframes for the same. It also clarified that the plea of limitation would not hinder the adjudication of proceedings on merit if parties initiate proceedings within the specified timeframes.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the release of a seized vehicle and the initiation/conclusion of confiscatory proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The court had been flooded with petitions due to non-initiation of such proceedings or passing of illegal orders, lack of parties pursuing the remedies provided under the Act, and delays in concluding confiscatory proceedings. The court issued several orders directing the initiation/conclusion of confiscatory proceedings within specific timeframes and clarified that the plea of limitation would not hinder the adjudication of proceedings on merit if parties initiate proceedings within the specified timeframes.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were numerous cases where confiscatory proceedings remained unresolved and directed the authorities to initiate/conclude proceedings within specific timeframes. It emphasized the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings and clarified that the plea of limitation would not hinder the adjudication of proceedings on merit if parties initiate proceedings within the specified timeframes.
Issues: Non-initiation of confiscatory proceedings, delays in concluding confiscatory proceedings, lack of parties pursuing the remedies provided under the Act, and passing of illegal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscatory proceedings and directed the authorities to adhere to specific timeframes for the same. It also clarified that the plea of limitation would not hinder the adjudication of proceedings on merit if parties initiate proceedings within the specified timeframes.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the initiation/conclusion of confiscatory proceedings within specific timeframes, and the court reserved liberty for the petitioner to take recourse to other remedies as available in accordance with the law if needed.

JUDGMENT :

S. KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“For direction/order to the respondent no.2 and 5 to release of vehicle in question Bolero Pick vehicle bearing registration number UP61AT1432, chasis no. MA1ZN2TBKJ1B25039 and engine no.TBJ1B35443 in favour of the petitioner-owner, which has been seized in connection with Buxar Mufassil P.S.Case no.283/2018 dated 30.09.2018 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act (Amendment), 2018.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition be disposed of in terms of order dated 9th January, 2020 passed in CWJC No. 20598 of 2019 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar and subsequent order dated 14th January, 2020 passed in CWJC No.17165 of 2019 titled as Umesh Sah Versus the State of Bihar & Ors. and order dated 29.01.2020 passed in CWJC No.2050 of 2020 titled as Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

5. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) prohibits the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation, possession, sale, purchase and consumption of any intoxicant or liquor, unless so allowed in terms of the Act. (Section 13).

6. In addition to the penalty imposed for committing such an offence, Section 56 of the Act lays down the procedure for confiscation of “things” used for in the commission of such an offence. The said Section reads as under:

“56. Things liable for confiscation.-Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely

(a) Any intoxicant, liquor, material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed;

(b) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation under clause (a);

(c) any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause (a) or clause (b), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering;

(d) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carrying the same.

(e) Any premises or part thereof that may have been used for storing or manufacturing any liquor or intoxicant or for committing any other offence under this Act.

Explanation.-The word “premises” include the immovable structure, all moveable items within the structure and the land on which the premises is situated.”

7. Under section 58 power to issue an order of confiscation vests with the District Collector/Authorized officer, who upon receipt of the report of the seizing officer detaining such property (“things”) is required to pass an order.

8. This Court has been flooded with several petitions solely on account of non-initiation of such proceedings of confiscation or passing of illegal orders with respect thereto. Also, on account of lack of parties pursing the remedies so provided under the Act.

9. Consequently, the court was faced with the following fact situations:-(a) where despite seizure, no proceedings for confiscation under Section 58 were initiated; (ii) where such proceedings were initiated but not concluded within a reasonable time; (c) the parties after obtaining interim relief for release of “things” under orders passed in different set of writ petitions, did not participate in the confiscatory proceedings; (d) where the order of confiscation was neither communicated nor the parties made aware of such fact, thus precluding them from filing appeal under Section 92 and Revision under Section 93 of the Act; (e) proceedings initiated under Section 92/93 were not concluded within a reasonable time either on account of inaction on the part of the authority(s) or on account of non-cooperation of the private parties, be it for whatever rea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document