IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20842 of 2018

======================================================

Devesh Pandey, Son of Late Keshav Prasad Pandey, Resident of Village-

Sausa, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Government of

Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Purnea.

4.

The Superintendent of Police, Purnea.

5.

Superintendent of Excise, Purnea.

6.

The Officer in Charge, Muffasil Police Station, Purnea, District- Banka.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Shambhu Sharan Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr.Vikash Kumar- SC11

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN)

Date : 29-04-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the state.

Learned counsel for the State informs that final order

has been passed on 12.09.2017.

The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated

12.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,

Purnea in Confiscation Case No. 67 of 2017 by which a direction

to confiscate the vehicle has been passed by the District

Patna High Court CWJC No.20842 of 2018 dt.29-04-2019

2/5

Magistrate being the Confiscation Authority.

Apart from the prayer for quashing the order of

confiscation, the petitioner has also prayed for provisional

released of Rhino Car bearing Registration No. BR-11F-2744,

which has been seized in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.

259 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 47(A) of

the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act for recovery of 130 litres of

IMFL.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for

the present he would not be pressing the relief for quashing the

order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-

Collector, Purnea in connection with Confiscation Case No. 67

of 2017. He, however, submits that liberty may be granted to

the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order in an

appropriate jurisdiction by filing an appeal before the

Commissioner within a period of 30 days from today.

In view of the circumstances noted, we allow the

petitioner to question the order of confiscation before the

Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from today. In

case, such an appeal is preferred within the aforesaid period

accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20842 of 2018 dt.29-04-2019

3/5

Appellate Authority shall consider the same keeping in mind

that the petitioner was prosecuting his remedy before this

Court and the appeal shall be heard on its own merit and

disposed of expeditiously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage,

submits that because the appellate authority has no power to

pass an interim order of release, he would press this application

for a provisional release of the vehicle in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

vehicle is lying in the open sky in the police station and it has

turned almost a junk and if not allowed to be released, the

State is not going to gain anyway in confiscation proceeding.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to give

such surety and undertakings which may be required to protect

the interest of the State during the pendency of the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

taking note of the nature of seizure made as well as the fact

that the confiscation proceeding is pending, we direct that the

vehicle in question be released provisionally in favour of the

petitioner on production of ownership and registrat