Case Background
The petitioner is the registered owner of a Mahindra Scorpio bearing registration number BR-09PA-3316, with specified engine and chassis numbers. According to him, this vehicle was stolen from Begusarai on 24.01.2022.
For this theft, he lodged Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 62 of 2022 on 24.01.2022 against unknown persons under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
On 17.02.2022, the police in Kishanganj district intercepted a Mahindra Scorpio during vehicle checking. The driver escaped in the darkness. From that vehicle, 117 litres of India Made Foreign Liquor were recovered. Kishanganj Special Case No. 140 of 2022, arising out of Excise Case bearing P.R. No. 60 of 2022 dated 17.02.2022, was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle.
At the time of seizure, the number plate on the vehicle showed registration number BR-07PB-5068, not the petitioner’s number. Later, on verification by the District Transport Officer, Kishanganj, the actual registration number was found to be BR-09PA-3316, which belonged to the petitioner.
On 07.05.2022, Excise officials of Kishanganj informed the petitioner that his stolen Scorpio had been recovered in connection with Special Case No. 140 of 2022. When he went to the Excise office, he was told that the number plate had been changed, but the engine and chassis numbers matched his vehicle.
The petitioner then applied on 10.06.2022 before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj for release of his vehicle, enclosing all relevant documents. No action was taken on this application.
He also moved the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in Town P.S. Case No. 62 of 2022, seeking direction to the SHO to release his vehicle. This application was rejected on 23.07.2022.
Meanwhile, based on a report dated 03.03.2022 from the Excise Superintendent, Kishanganj, Confiscation Case No. 219 of 2022 had been started against unknown persons for the seized vehicle bearing the fabricated registration number BR-07PB-5068, and an order of confiscation was passed on 07.06.2022.
After the District Transport Officer reported that the actual registration number was BR-09PA-3316, the Excise Superintendent submitted a fresh report dated 24.06.2022 and Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022 was initiated in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle.
On 06.08.2022, the petitioner filed an application in Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022 stating that he had already moved the High Court seeking release of the vehicle and requesting that the confiscation proceedings be stayed.
On 13.08.2022, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kishanganj passed a final order in Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022, confiscating the petitioner’s vehicle. According to the petitioner, his counsel could not appear that day for personal reasons, and he himself had no knowledge of the order.
Unaware of the confiscation order, the petitioner continued with his earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 11678 of 2022, before the Patna High Court. On 02.09.2022, the High Court directed the District Collector/Confiscating Authority to release the petitioner’s vehicle within 15 days.
Armed with this judgment, the petitioner filed an application dated 13.09.2022 before the District Magistrate, Kishanganj, enclosing the High Court order. Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022 was reopened and heard on four dates. On 15.10.2022, the District Magistrate disposed of the case, observing that “it seems the matter has been suppressed before the Hon’ble High Court and this court has no direction to review the case”.
The petitioner then filed Excise Appeal Case No. 519 of 2022 before the Excise Commissioner (respondent no. 03) challenging the order dated 13.08.2022. On 19.12.2022, the appellate authority affirmed the confiscation order.
He next filed Excise Revision Case No. 4 of 2023 before respondent no. 02 against the appellate order. On 09.02.2023, the revisional authority also affirmed the earlier orders.
During the pendency of the revision, the authorities auctioned the vehicle on 10.02.2023 to one Md. Seraj. The Regional Transport Authority had earlier assessed the value of the vehicle at Rs. 4,00,000/-, but it was sold in auction for Rs. 6,26,000/-.
Aggrieved by the confiscation, the affirming appellate and revisional orders, and the auction of his vehicle, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in the present Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7262 of 2023.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court first looked at the statutory framework. It considered Section 56 (confiscation of seized items) and Section 58 (confiscation by District Collector) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. It also examined Rules 12A, 13A and 14 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 dealing with release of vehicles on penalty, procedure of confiscation, and auction/destruction of seized items.
Rule 13A(1) requires that the proposal for confiscation of a vehicle be sent by the police or excise officer to the Collector within 30 days of seizure. Rule 13A(7) mandates that the confiscation order be passed within 90 days from the date of seizure.
On the factual side, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed an FIR on 24.01.2022 reporting theft of his vehicle, much before the excise case of 17.02.2022 in Kishanganj. The theft was thus formally recorded by the police.
The Court carefully perused the prosecution report. It observed that even if the petitioner’s vehicle was used for transporting illicit liquor, there was nothing in the materials to show that the petitioner himself was involved.
The Court specifically recorded that there was no material suggesting that the petitioner facilitated or helped the culprits in transporting incriminating articles. It also held that the petitioner had not contravened Section 30 of the Act either directly or indirectly.
On this basis, the Court concluded that there was no direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner to justify confiscation of his vehicle.
The Court then scrutinised the conduct of the authorities. It found that the proposal for initiating confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle was sent on 24.06.2022, well after the 30-day period required under Rule 13A(1). The earlier proposal dated 03.03.2022 related to a different, fabricated registration number (BR-07PB-5068).
The Court felt that this showed “utterly negligent” conduct, as the authorities did not even bother to verify the engine and chassis numbers at the first stage.
It further noted that no effort was made to register an FIR for fabrication of the vehicle’s registration number, despite the clear misuse of a false number plate.
The valuation process also came under criticism. The valuation had been done on the basis of the fictitious registration number BR-07PB-5068 and not the actual number BR-09PA-3316. The Court held that this showed “gross negligence” on the part of the authorities.
The High Court had earlier, on 11.10.2023, directed the concerned transport authorities to appear and explain depreciation and valuation of the vehicle and also to clarify whether any FIR was registered about the fabricated number plate. The District Transport Officer and Motor Vehicle Inspector then appeared and explained their method of valuation, including 10% depreciation per year and consideration of vehicle condition.
However, even with these explanations, the Court remained concerned that valuation and proceedings had initially been anchored to the wrong registration number and that the legal timelines under the Rules were not followed.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in CWJC No. 17894 of 2022 (Sunita Sinha vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), decided on 14.09.2023. In that case, it had criticised the tendency of authorities to confiscate premises involved in illicit liquor trade in an arbitrary manner and to impose unreasonable conditions for release. It had also pointed out lacunae in the law regarding seizure, sealing and confiscation of premises. By drawing an analogy, the Court signalled that similar arbitrariness was present in the present vehicle confiscation.
Returning to the facts, the Court highlighted multiple procedural lapses:
First, the proposal for confiscation of the petitioner’s vehicle was sent belatedly, beyond the 30 days prescribed by Rule 13A(1).
Second, the authorities continued to be confused about the correct registration number, as even letter no. 1743 dated 22.06.2022 from the Superintendent, Excise and Prohibition still mentioned the wrong number BR-07PB-5068. A later communication dated 28.10.2023 from the District Transport Officer, Kishanganj to the Standing Counsel confirmed that officials were still “in dark” about the fabricated number plate at that time.
Third, the confiscation order in Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022 was passed on 13.08.2022. The Court held that this was not within 90 days from the date of seizure as required under Rule 13A(7). Thus, there was clear violation of the Rules.
Fourth, the authorities auctioned the vehicle on 10.02.2023 during the pendency of the petitioner’s revision. The Court considered this another sign of arbitrariness.
Viewing these circumstances together, the Bench held that the confiscating authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority had all failed to properly discharge their duties. They had passed orders “in a mechanical manner” and without any direct or indirect evidence against the petitioner.
The Court held that the entire action of the authorities was “completely arbitrary, unreasonable and shows complete non-application of mind”.
Consequently, the Court set aside:
(i) the confiscation order dated 13.08.2022 in Confiscation Case No. 480 of 2022;
(ii) the appellate order dated 19.12.2022 in Excise Appeal Case No. 519 of 2022; and
(iii) the revisional order dated 09.02.2023 in Excise Revision Case No. 4 of 2023.
Given the seriousness of the lapses and the hardship suffered by the petitioner, the Court went further and imposed exemplary costs on the respondent authorities.
They were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 (five lakhs) to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
In addition, the Court directed that the auction amount, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of auction till payment, be paid to the petitioner.
With these directions, the Patna High Court allowed the writ petition.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for vehicle owners in Bihar, especially those whose vehicles are seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that a vehicle cannot be confiscated and auctioned merely because it was used to transport liquor. There must be some evidence that the owner was directly or indirectly involved in the offence or had knowledge of it.
The Court has also reminded authorities that they must strictly follow the procedure laid down in the Rules. The deadlines of 30 days for sending the confiscation proposal and 90 days for passing the confiscation order are not to be ignored.
By awarding heavy compensation and ordering refund of the auction amount with interest, the Court has sent a strong message that negligent and mechanical exercise of confiscation powers will have financial consequences for the State.
This ruling will be useful for innocent owners whose stolen or misused vehicles are later seized in prohibition cases. It shows that the Patna High Court is prepared to intervene when there is no evidence against the owner and when authorities act arbitrarily.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the authorities confiscate and auction a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when there is no evidence that the registered owner was involved in transporting illicit liquor, and when procedural rules on confiscation are not followed?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence against the owner, and where mandatory procedural requirements under the Act and Rules are violated, the confiscation and auction are arbitrary and unsustainable, and the orders must be set aside with compensation. - Issue: What is the effect of delay and negligence by authorities in initiating and conducting confiscation proceedings under Rule 13A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021?
Answer: Delay in sending the confiscation proposal beyond 30 days, failure to pass confiscation order within 90 days, reliance on wrong registration numbers and failure to act on fabricated number plates collectively show non-application of mind and render the confiscation orders liable to be quashed. - Issue: Is it proper for authorities to auction a seized vehicle during the pendency of a revision against the confiscation order?
Answer: The Court found that auctioning the vehicle while the petitioner’s revision was pending was arbitrary and further demonstrated the unfairness of the authorities’ conduct, justifying setting aside the orders and awarding compensation.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No. 17894 of 2022, judgment dated 14.09.2023, Sunita Sinha vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. – cited by the Court by way of analogy to criticise arbitrary confiscation practices and unreasonable conditions for release of premises involved in illicit liquor trade.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7262 of 2023
Case Title: Ramprakash Paswan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 (1) PLJR 382
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha
Date of Judgment: 24.11.2023
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Narayan Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents (State): Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging confiscation, appellate and revisional orders and seeking release of vehicle and related reliefs under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
