Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Bypass Statutory Appeals in Excise Confiscation Matters: Patna High Court in Prayagadhwaj Yadav Case - 2026-06-09

Writ Jurisdiction Curtailed: Patna High Court Denies Relief in Liquor-Related Vehicle Seizure

In a firm reaffirmation of the exhaustion of statutory remedies, the Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a vehicle owner seeking to overturn the confiscation of his car, which was seized with over 350 liters of illicit liquor. The bench, comprising Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Arun Kumar Jha, ruled that when a specific statutory appellate forum is provided by law, a petitioner cannot bypass that mechanism by invoking the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Backdrop: A Rental Narrative Meets a Police Seizure

The case involves petitioner Prayagadhwaj Yadav, whose Hyundai Venue was seized on June 21, 2024, by the Durgawati Police after they recovered 350.250 liters of illicit foreign liquor from the stationary, locked vehicle. While the state moved to confiscate the vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 , the petitioner contended that his vehicle had been rented out via the "Zoom Car" application to a third party.

Yadav claimed he was unaware of the criminal activity and that he had even attempted to report the vehicle as missing to police in Delhi when the renter failed to return it, only to discover the vehicle had already been seized in Bihar. Despite his pleas, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Mohania (Kaimur) denied the release of the vehicle, citing public interest, and ordered it to be auctioned.

Conflicting Arguments: Rights vs. Public Interest

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the seizure process lacked transparency, noting that no suspects were apprehended at the scene. He requested the court to intervene, drawing parallels to earlier precedents where seized vehicles were released.

Conversely, the State strongly maintained that the veracity of the petitioner’s "rental agreement" story was a matter of contested fact inappropriate for summary writ proceedings. They argued that given the sheer volume of illicit liquor involved, the decision to confiscate the vehicle was not just a legal mandate but a necessary measure of "public interest," especially since the petitioner had an open, efficacious path to challenge the magistrate's order through an appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 .

Judicial Reasoning: The Limits of Article 226

The High Court underscored that legal disputes involving complex factual narratives—such as the validity of a rental contract—are not suitable for resolution under writ jurisdiction. By refusing to engage in fact-finding, the bench effectively compelled the petitioner to pursue the legal remedy designed by the legislature.

Chiefly, the Court highlighted that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act provides a specific tier of appeals. The ruling establishes that the discretionary power of the High Court is not a substitute for the statutory appellate hierarchy, particularly when the petitioner has willfully ignored the primary legal forum.

Key Observations

The judgment relied on several seminal rulings to frame its decision:

• On the duty to exhaust remedies: "It is a well-settled law that when a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226."
• On the nature of public interest: "The Collector or the officer authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said vehicle or conveyance and its subsequent auction/disposal."
• On the limits of writ petitions: "The petitioner has raised disputed question of facts, as has already been mentioned hereinabove... hence such disputes cannot be considered appropriately in a writ petition by this Court."

Final Verdict: The Path Ahead

The Patna High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the appellate route provided under Section 92 of the Act rendered the writ petition unsustainable. This decision serves as a significant signal to litigants in excise cases: while the High Court remains a guardian of rights, it will not permit the subversion of internal statutory mechanisms, nor will it serve as a trial court for factual disputes involving seized property in liquor-related crimes.