IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
CWJC No.2294 of 2021
(19.12.2022)
Md. Irfan Alam ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents~
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 – Sections 30(a) and 58 – Confiscation of Truck carrying huge quantity of illicit liquor – Notice was issued for public auction of vehicle in a newspaper – Petitioner is registered owner of truck – It is an admitted fact that petitioner's truck was found loaded with huge quantity of illicit liquor in State of Bihar which was being transported for commercial sale, in breach of provisions under the Act, constituting offence under the Act – In absence of any statutory requirement under the Act to ensure actual service of notice on owner of an article liable to be auction sold upon confiscation, auction sale cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that notice of auction sale was not served upon such owner – Writ Application dismissed. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24)
Dr. Basant Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2018(1) PLJR 451; Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 13 SCC 336; Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136; Raghunath Thakur vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 620 – Referred.
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (the Act for short), has been enacted for complete prohibition of liquor and intoxicants in the territory of the State of Bihar. Chapter-VI of the said Act prescribes penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export, transport, possession, sale, purchase, and distribution etc. of any intoxicant or liquor. Section 56 of the Act delineates the list of such things, which would be liable for confiscation, in case an offence punishable under the Act is committed, which includes any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carrying any intoxicant or liquor. Section 58 of the Act confers upon the Collector a jurisdiction to order confiscation of a property, which is liable for confiscation under the Act, which is seized or detained under the provisions of the Act, upon receipt of a report regarding such seizure/detention of such property liable for confiscation. Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act requires giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an order of confiscation.
2. It is indisputable in the instant case that a truck bearing registration No. WB-23D-9255 was seized, carrying huge quantity of illicit liquor, giving rise to registration of a criminal case being Rosera P.S. Case No. 58 of 2018 disclosing commission of an offence punishable under Section 30(a) and other allied Sections of the Act. The petitioner is the registered owner of the said truck and an accused in the said Rosera P.S. Case No. 58 of 2018. Following the requirement under Section 58(1) of the Act, a report was sent to the District Collector about the seizure of the vehicle, recommending for its confiscation. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 18542 of 2019, seeking release of the truck. The confiscating authority initiated a confiscation proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner, who appeared before the confiscating authority and filed his response. The confiscating authority ordered for confiscation of the vehicle, upon taking into account the admitted fact that a huge quantity of illicit liquor was found being transported for commercial purpose, in the said vehicle and accordingly ordered for its confiscation, vide an order dated 29.08.2020. The petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., the Excise Commissioner, Bihar which came to be dismissed by an order dated 30.09.2020. The truck, upon confiscation, has been auction sold in a public auction for a sum of Rs.7,89,000.00, in favour of the respondent No.7.
3. In the background of the above noted facts, the petitioner has challenged the order of confiscation dated 29.08.2020 passed by the confiscating authority, whereby the petitioner’s truck has been ordered to be confiscated and the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against the order of confiscation. The said order of the appellate authority dated 30.09.2020 has been issued by Memo. No. 3390 dated 13.10.2020. The petitioner is accordingly seeking a direction for release of the vehicle in his favour after setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by the confiscating authority and the appellate authority.
4. Two applications have been filed in the present proceeding seeking amendment in the writ petition. I.A. No. 1 of 2021 has been filed seeking following additional reliefs:—
“(i) A writ order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 to hand over the vehicle truck vide its registration no.WB-23D-9225 to the petitioner as he is ready to deposit auction bid amount (rupees 7,89,000.00) of the respondent no.7.
(ii) A writ order and direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter 161/Ma.ni dated 28.01.2021 issued by the responde
Dr. Basant Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar
Sant Lal Gupta vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd.
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires evidence of the owner's consent or involvement in illegal activities; failure to establish this renders confiscation inva....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely initiation and conclusion of confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, and the amendment allowin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.