Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1979
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SOURENDRAPANDEY, JJ
Vivekanand Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Secretary of the Excise Department – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18845 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Pratik Kumar, AC to GA-11
The court clarified that a vehicle's confiscation cannot be justified solely based on the quantity of liquor found; public interest factors must be considered in decision-making.
Headnote:The present case relates to the interpretation of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 concerning vehicle confiscation under an Excise Appeal Case. The court determined that refusal to release a vehicle solely on the quantity of liquor found does not constitute valid grounds and emphasized the necessity of considering ‘public interest’ factors as stipulated in the Rules. Issue: Whether the confiscation order was justified based solely on the quantity of liquor? The court concluded that such a decision lacked cogent grounds, leading to the order being set aside and directing the competent authority to reconsider the application for vehicle release.
Result: The S.D.M, Bhabhua (Kaimur) is ordered to issue a new decision within one month regarding the vehicle's release application of the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final judgment allowing application (Para 7) |
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA-11 for the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Excise Appeal Case No. 85 of 2025 by the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the Excise Commissioner being the Appellate Authority has refused to interfere with the order of confiscation passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 75 of 2025 vide order dated 13.03.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application with proposal in Form IV and other documents as required for release of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that the release has been refused on the solitary ground that the vehicle was intercepted with 110.640 litres of liquor. It is submitted that in the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 10126 of 2025) vide judgment dated 13.11.2025, this Court has taken a view that the vehicle cannot be confiscated and release cannot be refused on the solitary ground of quantum of liquor. This Court had occasion to go through the provisions of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules , 2021 (as amended up to date) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2021 (as amended up to date)’) and this Court has considered sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A which prescribes for refusal to release the vehicle on the ground of ‘public interest’.
4. It is submitted that even the Appellate Authority could not appreciate the spirit of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as amended up to date) and has refused to interfere with the rejection of the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle.
5. Learned AC to GA-11 for the State has opposed the writ application. It is submitted that the vehicle was found involved in transportation of 110.640 litres of liquor and it is stated in the impugned order that the quantity would come in the category of commercial quantity. It is, however, not denied that so far as the Act and Rules are concerned, they do not provide for any commercial quantity.
6. Having regard to the aforementioned submissions and the reason shown in the impugned orders, we find that in this case, the release has been refused on the solitary ground that the vehicle was transporting 110.640 litres of liquor. In the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav (supra), we have considered Rule 12A and sub- rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as amended up to date). The relevant parts of the discussions and opinion of this Court are being extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“11. Since Rule 12A(3) talks of ‘public interest’ but it has not been clearly explained in the Rules, we would take a cue on this from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saiyad Hussain Abbas Rizwi (supra) and Kameshwar Singh (supra). To us, it appears that the legislatures in their wisdom have inserted Rule 12A with a conscious decision to allow release of the vehicles on payment of penalty. One of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the quantum of penalty is the quantum of liquors loaded on the vehicle, therefore, only on the ground of quantity of liquor, the competent authority cannot reject an application for release of the vehicle.
12. In our considered opinion, it is to be decided by the competent authority in appropriate cases keeping in view several factors such as whether the vehicle has been caught in commission of offence repeatedly or that the owner of the vehicle could not be verified, there may be a case where the liquors are found spurious and the owner of the vehicle may be found involved in multiple cases of like nature under the liquor laws or any other consideration of like nature. In such cases, the compet
