Madhuresh Prasad, J. – The writ petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 31.05.2022 passed in confiscation case no. 74 of 2022 directing for confiscation of the petitioner’s house and lands appurtenant thereto. There is alleged recovery of 5.76 liters of illicit liquor from the house.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that alleged recovery is from a house jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother. The allegations are palpably false and the order of confiscation is unsustainable. Section 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") as it existed on the date of seizure mandates immediate sealing of the premises from which any liquor or intoxicant is recovered, or such premises which have been used for committing any offence under the Act.

3. In the instant case, it is the petitioner's contention that admittedly the house, in question, has never been sealed. Had any liquor been recovered from the premises, the authorities would surely have sealed it. The authorities cannot be permitted to arbitrarily take a decision one fine day to start confiscation proceeding against any property/premises. The Act provides a check on such arbitrariness by specifying a procedure under Section 62 of the Act which mandates sealing of the premises immediately upon recovery of liquor. Thereafter the seizing authority is required to send a report to the Collector for confiscation of the same. The petitioner’s premises in question was never sealed. The order of confiscation is de hors the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 62 of the Act, and thus unsustainable.

4. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that authorities have acted in accordance with law. The petitioner has remedy of appeal and revision against the impugned order of the sub-divisional officer, which he has not availed. From the seizure list forming part of the FIR, it is pointed out there is recovery of 32 units of Super Speed Whisky, containing 180 ml in each unit. Recovery of 5.76 litres of illicit liquor from the FIR named accused person’s house is obvious from the seizure memo itself.

5. Non sealing of the petitioner’s house, as per the learned State counsel, cannot be made the basis of invalidating the action taken by the authority upon recovery of illicit liquor.

6. We consider it apt to reproduce Sections 56(c) and 62 of the Act, as on the date of alleged recovery (12- 09-2021) of illicit liquor from the petitioner’s premises, that is, prior to amendment by Bihar Act 03 of 2022 on 01.04.2022, which read as under: –

"56(c) 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;

shall be liable to be confiscated in a manner prescribed under the provisions of the Act,"

62. Premises liable to be sealed. – If it comes to the notice of any excise officer or any police officer, not below the rank of a Sub Inspector, that any liquor or intoxicant has been found at a particular premises or a particular premises or a part thereof is or has been used for committing any offence under this Act, he may immediately (emphasis ours) seal the premises and send a report to the Collector for the confiscation of the same.

Provided that if the said premises are temporary structures which cannot be effectively sealed, then the excise officer or the police officer, with the order of the Collector, may demolish such temporary structures."

7. Section 62 clearly provides for immediate sealing of the premises from where any liquor or intoxicant is found or which has been used for committing any offence punishable under the Act. In the same breath it requires the sealing officer to send a report to the Collector for confiscation of the same.

8. We are of the opinion that the prescription “immediately” in Section 62 of the Act is with a purpose. The recovery of illicit liquor from any premises as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 makes the pre