Guidelines for vehicle release under prohibition laws cannot conflict with statutory provisions, and decisions must be consistent and just.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

2 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-3 for the State of Bihar.

2. This writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur) in Excise Case No. 26/2025 arising out of Mohania P.S. Case No. 846 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohania (Kaimur) has been pleased to reject the prayer for the petitioner for release of the vehicle bearing Registration No. BR45P7115 (Green Colour Bajaj Auto Rickshaw), Chassis No.

MD2B47AX4RWE61081 which has been seized in connection with Mohania P.S. Case No. 846 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question has been rejected on the ground that in Departmental Letter No. 134 dated 15.01.2024 and Departmental Letter No. 3095 dated 26.04.2022, some guidelines have been provided by the competent authority in the matter of release of the vehicle. According to the competent authority, the release of vehicle may be refused if the vehicle is found carrying prohibited liquor.

4. In almost similar circumstance, this Court had occasion to consider the guidelines issued by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj vide Memo No. 4025/Excise dated 17.11.2023 by which a direction has been issued that in case, a two-wheeler carrying more than five litres and four-wheeler carrying more than ten litres of liquor is seized then such vehicles shall not be released only on payment of penalty because such release would create hindrance in successful implementation of the provisions of the Prohibition Laws.

5. This Court held that the kind of guideline issued by the District Magistrate is against the scheme of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules , 2021 (as amended up to date). Paragraphs ‘8’ to ‘12’ of the judgment in the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 10126 of 2025) are being produced hereunder for a ready reference:-

“8. In past, it was noticed that huge number of vehicles, which were seized in connection with the Prohibition Laws were lying outside the police station occupying the road areas and those were being damaged due to the delay in disposal of confiscation cases and auction sale which were intermittently facing legal actions and the hindrances. In order to come out of such a situation, Rule 12A has been inserted. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12A , nowhere prescribes that the vehicle shall not be released if more than five liters or ten liters of liquors have been found in the vehicle. The Legislature have in their wisdom provided that quantum of penalty has to be fixed giving due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, the involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest insured value of the vehicle. The general guideline issued by the Collector that the vehicle involving in transportation of more than five liters or ten liters shall not be released on payment of compensation seems to be against the scheme of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021.

9. This Court specifically called upon the learned counsel for the State to show as to whether the Collector has any power under the Rules of 2021 to issue such order/directions in the matter of release of the vehicle. Learned counsel has submitted that no such provision is there empowering the Collector to provide any such guideline.

10. The words ‘public interest’ had fallen for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission versus Saiyad Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 61 Referring to its judgment in the case of State of Bihar V. Kameshwar Singh reported in AIR 1952 SC 252,