Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. Raju Giri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General and Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, learned AAG-5 assisted by Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned AC to AAG-5 for the State of Bihar.

2. The brief facts of the case and the issues which have cropped up for consideration in the present case have been taken note of by this Court in its order dated 25.11.2025 which we reproduce hereunder for a ready reference:—

“Heard Mr. Raju Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Alok Ranjan, learned AC to AAG-9 for the State of Bihar.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the authorities who deal with the confiscation matter and the appeal and revision were fully aware that the vehicle of the petitioner had been stolen away for which the petitioner had lodged one FIR and the involvement of the petitioner has not been found in the said case registered by the petitioner, still all these authorities have proceeded to pass an order whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 10% of the insured value of the vehicle by way of penalty for release of the vehicle.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out from the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Secretary, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Government of Bihar that the Revisional Authority has taken note of a judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 11678 of 2022 (Ramprakash Paswan vs. The State of Bihar and Others) and in fact, he has quoted certain part of the order of this Court in the impugned order dated 19.06.2025, however, there are recent judgments of this Court in the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10126 of 2025) and in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10777 of 2025) in which this Court has held that in the case of theft of vehicle where the vehicle has been found with the liquors and the involvement of the owner of the vehicle has not been found, the vehicle is liable to be released and in such cases, the confiscation proceeding cannot go on. Still the judgments of this Court are not being followed and the authorities in the Department of Prohibition and Excise are passing orders in breach of the judgments of this Court.

4. We grant two weeks time to the State Respondents to file a comprehensive counter affidavit. Since we propose to register a contempt proceeding, if it is found that the authorities are acting in complete disregard and disobedience to the judgment of this Court, the respondents shall also explain as to why contempt proceeding be not ordered to be registered.

5. List this case on 10.12.2025 under the same heading.

6. In the meantime, the vehicle in question shall not be auction sold if not already auction sold. If the vehicle has been auction sold, the procedure followed during the auction and the name of the auction purchaser shall be disclosed in the counter affidavit.”

3. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, a counter affidavit as well as a show cause have been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Earlier, when the matter was taken up for consideration after filing of the counter affidavit and show cause, learned AC to AAG-5 informed this Court that considering the impact of the judgment which may have, the matter will be argued by learned Advocate General and learned AAG-5.

5. Today, this Court has the advantage of hearing learned Advocate General as well as learned AAG-5 for the State of Bihar.

6. During pendency of this writ application, this Court had occasion to consider an almost similar matter in CWJC No. 19659 of 2025 (Bimlesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others). That was also a case in which the vehicle in question was stolen away for which a first information report was lodged by the vehicle owner. When the vehicle was intercepted, it was found that the number plate of the vehicle was changed and a false number plate was pla