JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities to unseal/unlock the house of the petitioner which has been locked/ sealed without making aware the petitioner any reason for locking the same on 31.01.2022.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019, dated 06.10.2019 was instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 with allegation that son of the petitioner has kept India made foreign liquor in his house and selling the same. A raid was conducted and son of the petitioner was apprehended. The house of the petitioner was searched and recovery of total 8.25 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was made from the house of the petitioner. It further transpires the part of the house of the petitioner was sealed on 31.01.2022 and the petitioner was told verbally that as the recovery of illicit was made from the house of the petitioner earlier, her house was being sealed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land on which house was constructed subsequently was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed and the land has also mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not made accused in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019. No presumption was ever raised about the involvement of the petitioner and the house of the petitioner was not sealed when allegedly the recovery of illicit liquor was made from it. But all of a sudden, the police came and sealed the house of the petitioner after more than two years of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that prior to sealing, the investigation was closed in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019. Therefore, the subsequent sealing of the house of the petitioner is without authority of law as the police has not reopened the investigation. Hence, the action of the police is illegal, malicious, arbitrary and malafide. Learned counsel further submits that the part of the house has remained sealed for more than four years, therefore, the authorities are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel prays for unsealing of the house of the petitioner and award of compensation.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents submits that there is no illegality in the action of the police officials. Section 56 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (in short 'the Act') provides for confiscation of 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. Further, under Section 62 of the Act, premises liable to the sealed has been described. As recovery of illicit liquor has been made from the premises of the petitioner, the same was liable to be sealed under Section 62 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the sealing is percursor of the confiscation proceeding. Learned counsel further submits though there is delay of more than two years in sealing the premises, the same has been done as per the statutory provision though under erroneous understanding of the scope of Section 62 of the Act. Learned counsel refers to the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that errors in procedure, when undertaken bonafide, do not amount to malice, especially in the enforcement of social welfare legislation. Learned counsel very fairly submits that in view of the legal position and observations made by this Court from time to time, the authorities stand ready to unseal the premises subject to appropriate safeguards. However, learned counsel vehemently contends tha