Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ.—The undisputed facts of the present case portray a blatant highhandedness on the part of the respondents for the manner in which the petitioner's vehicle was auction sold, based on an order of confiscation passed under Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 ("the Act" in short), in brazen violation of the mandatory statutory prescription under Section 92 of the Act.

2. The petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of a WagonR car bearing Registration No. BR07AN-9031 with its Engine No. K10BN-8418515, Chassis No. MA3JMT31SLJ350953. On 25.01.2021, the said vehicle was intercepted by a police officer of Begusarai Muffasil Police Station in the night at 12:30. Allegedly, the said car was seen moving in high speed by the police, and upon chase the vehicle was intercepted. Seven persons, it is alleged, were found sitting in the said car, and upon further search an unsealed bottle of IMFL by the name of Imperial Blue of capacity 375 ml was seized. Out of 375 ml, some part of it, it is alleged, was consumed and 200 ml was found left in the bottle. The police also recovered a cigarette packet with the brand name ‘Charms’, five plastic glasses, two match boxes, one torn mixture packet and one gutkha packet.

3. With the allegation of recovery of 200 ml of IMFL, an FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 55 of 2021 was registered for commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a), 37© and 41(a) of the Act.

4. In purported exercise of power under Section 56 of the Act, a confiscation proceeding was initiated giving rise to Excise Case No. 23 of 2021. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the confiscating authority and filed his reply to the show cause notice.

5. By an order dated 05.07.2021, the confiscating authority i.e. the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai passed an order of confiscation in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle in purported exercise of its power under Section 58 (2) of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, informed the confiscating authority that he intended to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 92 of the Act, against the order of confiscation. It is an admitted fact that the said communication of the petitioner sent through registered post was received by the office of the confiscating authority on 14.08.2021.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner giving rise to Excise Appeal No 563 of 2021. In the meantime, however, the vehicle was auction sold on 26-08-2021, admittedly, just 12 days after the petitioner had intimated that he was going to prefer an appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it was incumbent upon the confiscating authority to decide first the preliminary issue as to whether the vehicle was liable for confiscation or not. He has submitted that even if the facts, which were alleged in the First Information Report, were taken to be correct, no prudent man could have reached a conclusion that the vehicle was being used for carrying such meagre quantity (200 ml) of illicit liquor. He has further submitted that, in no circumstance, the confiscating authority could have auction sold the vehicle, till such time the order of confiscation dated 05.07.2021 attained finality on the date of the order of the Excise Commissioner under Section 92 of the Act; and the resultant outcome of the appeal which the petitioner had preferred. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s intimation to the confiscating authority that he intended to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation was received in the office of the said authority on 14.08.2021. He has accordingly submitted that the entire exercise, right from the initiation of confiscation proceeding till the auction sale of the petitioner's vehicle, is patently illegal, unauthorised and liable to be held accordingly by this Court.

8. Mr. Kumar Ma