2022 Supreme(Pat) 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Vivek Baitha S/o. Sri Nandlal Baitha @ Bhim Baitha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 698 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Prasad (GP 7).
The need for expeditious implementation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the court's authority to issue specific timeframes for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings.
Headnote:
Prohibition and Excise Act - Confiscation Proceedings - Sections 56, 58, 92, 93 - The court issued directions for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings within specific timeframes, and clarified that delay in such proceedings would result in the release of the property. The court emphasized the need for expeditious implementation of the Act and directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit outlining the mechanism to prevent litigants from directly approaching the court for release of property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of a seized vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The court observed a pattern of non-compliance with its orders regarding the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, leading to a backlog of cases. The court directed the Chief Secretary to outline a mechanism for expeditious implementation of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a consistent failure to initiate and conclude confiscation proceedings within a reasonable time, leading to a backlog of cases. It directed the Chief Secretary to outline a mechanism for expeditious implementation of the Act.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders regarding the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, leading to a backlog of cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expeditious implementation of the Act and directed the Chief Secretary to outline a mechanism to prevent litigants from directly approaching the court for release of property. It also issued specific timeframes for the initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, with a warning that delay would result in the release of the property.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the expeditious initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings, and a warning that delay would result in the release of the property.
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: -
“That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, particularly in nature of mandamus, for directing the learned Special Judge, Excise, West Champaran, Bettiah/the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, to release the a white colored Hero Super Splendor bearing Registration No. BR-22AN-6909, Chassis No. MBLJAW09XKSG10962, and Engine No. JA05EGKSG-32479, which was illegally seized in connection with Gopalpur P. S. Case No. 102 of 2021 dated 25.07.2021 registered under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for alleged recovery of 02 liters of country brewed liquor from its dickey, in respect of which, no confiscation-proceeding has yet been initiated.”
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 Vs. 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