Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard both the parties.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):—

(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or directions including a writ in the nature of mandamus in Excise P.S. Case No. 13 of 2025 and issuance a writ order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the seized vehicle bearing its registration No. DD02G0824 (BMW Car) Engine No. 0057Y453 Chassis No. WBA27DR08PY425456 which was seized in arising out of Excise P.S. Case no.13 of 2025 relates to the petitioner has been seized without proper reason.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction directing the respondents to take no action against vehicle during pendency of this writ petition.

(iii) And/or other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions may be issued which the petitioner is entitled to.

3. As per prosecution’s case, there is alleged recovery of 750ml of foreign liquor beneath the driver’s seat from the vehicle of petitioner bearing Registration no. DD-02- G-0824, Chassis No. WBA27DR08PY425456 and Engine No. 0057Y453. On basis of the aforesaid facts, F.I.R. was registered on 05.01.2025 bearing Excise P.S. Case No.13 of 2025 under Sections 30(a), 32(1), 32(2), 41(1) and 41(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 and the vehicle in question was seized and being confiscated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery is meager quantity of 750 ml of foreign liquor beneath the driver’s seat who was seating inside the vehicle and the petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question was not involved in the offence and the vehicle was not used in transportation of any illicit liquor. The vehicle in question is kept in open sky. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector is not complying with the provisions enshrined in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The Collector has acted ultra vires in not providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without serving any notice to the petitioner the seized vehicle is being confiscated. Moreover, it is submitted that the seized liquor does not belong to the petitioner and a false F.I.R. has been registered with connivance of enemies. Also, a false seizure memo was prepared without involvement of any independent witnesses as both the witnesses who signed the seizure memo are police officer. The petitioner is resident of Madhya Pradesh.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner are not tenable and the vehicle in question is liable to be confiscated due to recovery of the illicit foreign liquor beneath the driver’s seat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is no illegality or impropriety in confiscating the vehicle in question and as such the petitioner does not deserve any relief so prayed.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances and rival submission of the parties, the legal question arise for consideration by this Court is whether the vehicle in question is liable to be seized and confiscated under the Act.

7. It is pertinent to analyse the relevant statutory provisions of the Act. The bare reading of Section 56(b) of the Act clearly shows that any vehicle or conveyance can be seized and confiscated under the Act only when the vehicle has been used for carrying/transporting any intoxicant or liquor. Section 58(3) of the Act provides that during confiscation proceeding, the owner of the vehicle has to be given opportunity of being heard. Section 57B(1) also provides that any vehicle, or other conveyance used for committing any offence punishable under the Act and seized may be released upon payment of penalty. Rule 12-A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 also provides that while imposing penalty under Section 57-B of the Act, the authority concerned is required to give due regard to the quanti