Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kishore Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52512
1 WP-39156-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39156 of 2025
RAM KISHORE UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Patel - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri V.S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) To call for entire relevant record.
(ii) To issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated
03.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no.2 and further
be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus / or any appropriate
writ commanding to release the vehicle in question.
(iii) Any other relief together cost of the petition which this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this
case may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is argued that a criminal case is pending consideration before the trial
Court and despite the same, vide order dated 13.08.2024, confiscation
proceedings were drawn and thereafter the respondent No.2 in terms of
impugned order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) confiscated the vehicle of
the petitioner bearing Registration No. MP-28-ZF-0757. It is submitted that
the vehicle in question cannot be confiscated during the pendency of trial
arising out of Crime No. 499 of 2024 registered at P.S. Amarwada District
Chhindwara for the offence under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act.
3. It is pointed out that the aforesaid issue was considered by the Full
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52512
2 WP-39156-2025
Bench of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya vs State of M.P. and others
: WP No. 11356 of 2024 decided on 21.04.2025 wherein it is observed as
under :
"96. Therefore, the questions referred to us in the matter of jurisdiction
to pass confiscation order during pendency of criminal proceedings
under M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and Cow Progeny Act are answered in the
following manner :
A. Section 47-A of M.P. Excise Act conferring authority on the
Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultra vires being
disproportionately violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, question of confiscation by the
Collector during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives in the
matter, as order for confiscation can now be passed only by the
Criminal Court trying the offence in terms of sections 46 and 47
thereof. As a necessary consequence thereto, Section 47-D would
become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not
been passed as yet, having rendered superfluous.
B. For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate
shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation during
pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed
before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District Magistrate
would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is
recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and
knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial.
C. Writ petition is maintainable once an order is passed by the
Collector/District Magistrate confiscating the vehicles by exercising
powers under the provisions of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and in case of
Cow Progeny Act, if it is passed before conclusion of trial, because it
will be without jurisdiction."
4. State counsel has fairly submits that the matter is squarely covered by
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramlal Jhariya (supra)
and the authorities were having no jurisdiction to pass the confiscation order
pending criminal case.
5. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 03.02.2025
(Annexure P/1) being unsustainable is hereby quashed. The petitioner is at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52512
3 WP-39156-2025
liberty to move an appropriate application regarding Supurdginama of the
vehicle in question before the competent Court.
6. In above terms, the petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV
