Vehicle confiscation under public interest cannot rely solely on liquor quantity, as it undermines legislative intent for vehicle release upon penalty.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-22 for the State.

2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.03.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the Commissioner (Excise) Bihar in Excise Appeal Case No. 25/ 2025 (Manjeet Kumar Yadav Versus Collector, Gopalganj and Others). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Excise) has refused to interfere with the confiscation order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj. By the impugned order of confiscation, the Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle bearing No. BR09U-7286 which belonged to the petitioner has been confiscated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Rule 12A of the BIHAR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE RULES , 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2021’) which has been inserted vide Amendment Rules 2022, Notification No. 2458 dated 05.04.2022, a provision has been brought into existence whereunder any vehicle, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. seized by any police or excise officer under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Excise Act’) may be ordered to be released. It is submitted that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 provides for the imposition of penalty and the factors which are required to be taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of penalty. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12A, however, carves out an exception and it provides that notwithstanding above, if on a report by police officer or excise officer, the Collector or the officer authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said vehicle or conveyance and its subsequent auction/disposal.

4. It is submitted that in the present case, the Collector, Gopalganj has invoked his power under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 and has refused to release the vehicle citing public interest. The submission is that in the impugned order, the Collector, Gopalganj has not pointed out as to what would be the matter of public interest. The Rule nowhere provides for any exception in terms of the quantum of liquors recovered and any other reason for which a vehicle may not be released. The words ‘in public interest’ have not been clearly explained under the Rules of 2021 and it is capable of being misconstrued. Learned counsel further submits that even the Excise Officer failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal.

5. The writ application has been contested by learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who was authorised by the Collector, Gopalganj to deal with the confiscation matters, only after providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is pointed out that Rule 12A (3) confers power upon the Confiscating Authority to refuse to release a vehicle in public interest. Learned counsel for the State, however, does not dispute that what will be a matter of public interest has not been clearly laid down under the Rules of 2021. It is also not contested that under the Rules, there is no embargo on the release of a vehicle only for the reason that it was found involved in transportation of certain amount of liquors.

6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions which we have noticed hereinabove, we find that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Offi