Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: –

"A. For issuance of a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 700/2020 whereby he has declined to release the said Motorcycle

B. For directing the Collector, Gopalganj to release the Motorcycle bearing registration no. BR01ES 9645, Passion Pro which is lying in the Kuchyacot Police Station, Gopalganj in the favour of the petitioner forthwith.

C. For passing any other suitable Order/s, appropriate Writ/s or direction/s which Your Lordships deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."

2. The relevant facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that on 17.9.2020, Excise Case No. 253 of 2020 was lodged against two accused persons, namely, Satyendra Kumar and Sunil Yadav alleging that both the accused were riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR01ES-9645 on N.H.-28. When they were stopped by the police, 13.900 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were seized from the bag on search. The bag was kept in the hand of accused Sunil Yadav, who was sitting as a pillion. On query, it was also stated by accused Satyendra Kumar that the alleged motorcycle is registered in the name of his wife, Sunaina Devi, who, subsequently, moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15051 of 2021, wherein, this Court passed the following order.

"We only hope and expect that the Authorities under the Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in accordance with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing which the vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be deemed to have been released without any further reference to this Court"

3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. However, vide impugned order dated 19.11.2021, passed in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 700 of 2020, the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, held that the confiscation proceeding has already been started with regard to the vehicle in question and the same was concluded on 25.2.2021 and hence it would not be appropriate to again pass any order. However, he suggested the petitioner to file an appeal against the order.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Confiscating Authority without any authority of law and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution. He further submits that for seizure and confiscation of any vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the vehicle is required to be used in commission of any offence under the Act with involvement of the owner of the vehicle. He refers to Section 56 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 2022. The alleged offence has been committed on 17.9.2020. He refers to Section 57-B, Section 58 of the Act and Rule 12-A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021. He further submits that as per the Prosecution case itself, 13.9 liter illicit liquor was recovered from the pillion rider of the motorcycle from his bag kept in his hand. It was not recovered from the dickey or any part of the motorcycle. In such situation, it does not lie in the mouth of the Respondents to say that the motorcycle was used to carry the contraband.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the owner of the vehicle, who is Petitioner herein, is also no way involved in the alleged offence, because even as per the prosecution case, she was neither driving the motorcycle nor sitting on the motorcycle, nor is case of the police that she being the owner of the motorcycle, is involved by way of consent for or connivance in use of the vehicle in commission of any offence. That is why she has not been made accused in the criminal case as registered by the police under the Act. A