Verification of theft is necessary before confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 22-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-7 for the State.

2. Petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated20.08.2025 contained in Annexure-P/6 passed by the District Collector Land Reforms, Marhaurah, Saran in Excise Confiscation Case No. 14 of 2025 arising out of the Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 610 of 2024 (State of Bihar v. Niraj Kumar Manjhi).

3. By the impugned order, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. BR28W9227, chassis no. MBLHAR072JHK24889 and engine no. HA10AGJHK46909 has been ordered to be confiscated and auction sold.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the notice of the confiscation case was received but the petitioner could not arrange to appear in time before the confiscating authority. Later on, he filed an application on 13.10.2025 in the office of the District Magistrate, Chapra at Saran in which he informed that the vehicle in question had been stolen away in connection with which one case being Barharia P.S. Case No. 534 of 2024 has been lodged.

5. Learned counsel submits that on perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-P/6), it would appear that the confiscating authority himself recorded that prior to auction, it should be verified as to whether the vehicle in question is a stolen vehicle or not. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had appeared and it appears from the impugned order that he had not filed the proposal for release of the vehicle but the confiscating authority should have verified the fact as to whether the vehicle was stolen one or not and only thereafter the order for confiscating and auction sale could have been passed.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear and file an application seeking release of the vehicle but even as he appeared but did not file an application seeking release of the same. It is submitted that as a matter of abundant caution, the confiscating authority had directed to re-verify the fact as to whether the vehicle is stolen vehicle or not.

7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances and the kind of observations present in the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion that in fact the confiscating authority should have been well advised to verify this fact as to whether the vehicle is a stolen vehicle or not prior to passing of the confiscation order and for auction sale of the same. The kind of order passed by the confiscating authority amounts to putting the cart before the horse.

8. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the District Collector Land Reforms, Marhaurah. The petitioner shall file copy of the F.I.R of the stolen vehicle and the confiscating authority shall be obliged to act in terms of the Rules by calling upon the I.O with the report in regard to the said theft case. If it is found that there was no involvement of the petitioner in the theft of the vehicle for transportation of liquor, the vehicle shall be ordered to be released without payment of penalty.

9. In case, the involvement of the petitioner is found, then the confiscating authority shall pass an appropriate order in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules , 2021 as amended up to date whereunder the vehicle may be released on payment of penalty as may be fixed by the competent authority considering the various factors including the quantum of the liquor recovered.

10. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of one month from the date of filing of such application.

11. The writ petition is disposed of in terms stated hereinabove.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)