DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The present Writ Application has been filed for release of Bolero vehicle of the petitioner, bearing Registration No. BR26D-2193 seized in connection with Mohania P.S. Case No.115 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, as amended by Amendment Act 8 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. The prosecution case got initiated on the basis of written report of Shardendu Sharad submitted to the S.H.O., Mohania is to the effect that during patrolling on 07.03.2019 at 6.30 P.M., after having received a secret information to the effect that through a Bolero vehicle huge quantity of liquor is being transported, a raid was laid near the shop of Munna Chaudhary when on seeing the police party few persons started fleeing away from the shop, but on chase being made by the police, three persons were apprehended who disclosed their names as, Lalan Kumar, Md. Aarif, Md. Salim. Subsequently, the shop and the vehicles which were parked there were searched and from the shop of Munna Chaudhary, 259.200 litres, from the Logan vehicle, 8.640 litres and from the Bolero vehicle, 18.900 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were recovered, leading to registration of Mohania P.S. Case No.115 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, as amended by Amendment Act 8 of 2018.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner claims to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question and the registration certificate of the vehicle in question has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

5. A counter affidavit 19.12.2019 has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 bringing on record the final order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Collector-cum-the District Magistrate, Bhabua in Confiscation Case No. 216 of 2019, as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, whereby, the Bolero vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR26D-2193 has been confiscated and the Excise Superintendent, Kaimur, Bbabua was directed to auction the seized vehicle within a period of thirty days and deposit the said amount in the treasury.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present writ application was registered on 05.07.2019 and thereafter on the request of learned AC to SC-5, the matter was adjourned for 25.11.2019 enabling him to obtain instructions and to file counter affidavit but again vide order dated 02.12.2019, on the basis of similar prayer of learned AC to SC- 5, the matter was adjourned for 25.09.2019, whereas the notices have been issued in the confiscation proceeding on 24.07.2019 and the final order has been passed on 06.11.2019. The aforesaid order suggests that the final order confiscating the Bolero vehicle of the petitioner has been passed during pendency of the writ application.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the final order in confiscation proceeding has been passed and the vehicle in question has already been confiscated and against the final order of confiscation, appeal lies under Section 92 of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the order has been passed by the Collector in consonance to the provision under Section 58(2) of the Act.

8. Considering the fact that the final order has been passed in the confiscation proceeding and the Act provides an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal in Chapter IX under Section 92(2) of the Act against the order passed by the Collector, before the Excise Commissioner, within ninety days of the order complained of, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

9. It is well settled that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being a self-imposed restriction can only be exercised when the writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement