The court ruled that confiscation orders must comply with statutory provisions regarding seizure and penalty, and that prior judgments must be considered.

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

2 03-12-2025 This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohania, Kaimur, in Excise (Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 35 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Sub-Rule (2) of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022 (in short, Excise Rules) to release the seized vehicle in his favour was rejected and the competent authority has further directed the sale of the said vehicle through auction.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle being Tata Nexon car bearing Registration No. DL4CBC6958, chassis no. MAT627017PLH97812 and engine no. REVTRN21HWXKA0783. It has been submitted that the said vehicle was seized in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 16 of 2025, wherein 419.13 liters of country-made foreign liquor were recovered, however, the driver of the vehicle managed to escape.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle, filed an application under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12A of the Excise Rules before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohaniya, in Confiscation Case No. 35 of 2025 for releasing his vehicle, after imposing an appropriate penalty. It has been submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mohaniya, Kaimur, after hearing the parties, vide his order dated 07.08.2025, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed for confiscation of the vehicle in question and further directed to sell the same through auction sale. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority, ignoring the provisions of the aforesaid Rules has passed the order of confiscation and auction sale without adhering to the mandate of the statute as contained in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12A . It has been submitted that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed with a malafide intention in order to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner.

5. The learned AC to SC-4 appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the order impugned has been passed taking into account the fact that the vehicle was confiscated after 419.13 liters of country-made foreign liquor were recovered from the same, which is a huge quantity. It has been submitted that there is departmental letter no. 3095 dated 26.04.2022, wherein it has been stated that legal proceedings be followed after taking into account the nature of use of the vehicle i.e. the personal or commercial usage and the social/financial status of the owner of the vehicle. It has been stated that the said order has been passed taking into account the aforesaid factors and after applying his judicious mind, the competent authority has held that the vehicle was seized with a huge quantity of liquor and it comes within the ambit of confiscation and therefore the said order was passed.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and we find that the order impugned has been passed taking into account that the vehicle was carrying illicit liquor and therefore, it falls under the category wherein it could be confiscated. It is relevant to point out that the provisions as contained under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12A of the Excise Rules does not contemplate any such reasoning for confiscation of the vehicle rather it speaks about the penalty to be imposed, taking into account the quantity of intoxicant recovered, the involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of the vehicle.

7. We are of the considered opinion that the reasoning given by the competent authority does not fall within t