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, 2016, and the issuance of directions to ensure compliance with the specified time limits.

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: -

“(i) For issuance of mandamus release the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR29M-3410 seized by the Darauli Police in connection with Darauli P.S. Case No.255 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30 (a) and 41 (i) of Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act in favour of the petitioner or his representative the vehicle in question has been seized with allegation the petitioner 7.740 liter foreign liquor from the dicky the case is presently pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Excise), Siwan.

(ii) For the issuance of any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.”

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 neith