Geeta Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 151 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10101 of 2020
     ======================================================

Geeta Devi (Female) aged about 44 years, wife of Sugdar Ray, Resident of Village- Baikunthpur, P.S.- Rajapakar, Dist- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. The Superintendent of Excise, Vaishali at Hajipur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur.

5. The Station Head Officer, Goraul Police Station, Dist- Vaishali.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar, S.C.-11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 18-01-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

"That this is an application for directing the respondent no.-2 to release the vehicle (Motor cycle) bearing registration no. BR31 AH-4839 which has been seized in connection with Rajapakar P.S. case no. 252/2019 due to violation of the Excise Act in which no confiscation proceeding has been initiated."

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petition

be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 22.12.2020, passed

in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9592 of 2020 (Dharmendra

Mahto versus The State of Bihar).

Patna High Court CWJC No.10101 of 2020 dt.18-01-2021

In the case of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court has

referred and discussed all the previous case laws on the subject.

Some of the judgments rendered in similar matters are as under:-

(i) Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,

reported in 2020(3) PLJR 927.

(ii) Umesh Sah Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.,

reported in 2020(3) PLJR 931.

(iii) Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah Vs. The State of Bihar

& Ors., reported in 2020(3) PLJR 935.

The operating part of the judgment in the case of Md.

Shaukat Ali are being briefly reproduced as under:-

"(a) Since the vehicle in question stands seized in relation to the FIR which stood registered long ago, in case confiscation proceeding has not been initiated, it must be initiated within a period of 15 days from today and that confiscation proceeding stands initiated, we direct the appropriate authority under the Act to forthwith ensure that such proceedings be concluded not later than 30 days.

(b) The petitioner undertakes to make himself available in the office of the concerned appropriate authority empowered under Section 58 of the Act i.e. District Collector, in his/her office on 24.01.2020 at 10:30 A.M.

(c) We further direct the appropriate authority to positively conclude the confiscation proceeding within next thirty days on appearance of the petitioner. If for whatever reason, such proceeding cannot be concluded, in that event it shall be open for the authority to take such measures, as are permissible in law, for release of the vehicle in question by way of interim measure, on such terms as may be deemed appropriate, considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) If eventually, the appropriate authority arrives at a conclusion that the property is not liable to be confiscated, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek damages in accordance Patna High Court CWJC No.10101 of 2020 dt.18-01-2021

with law and have appropriate proceedings initiated against the erring officials/officers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the certified copy of the order shall be made available to the concerned District Collector on the date so fixed.

For future guidance, where parties have not approached this Court, we issue the following direction:-

The expression "reasonable delay" used in Section 58 of Chapter VI of the Act, in our considered view, necessarily has to be within a reasonable time and with dispatch, which period, in our considered view, three months time is sufficient enough for any authority to adjudicate any issue, more so, when we are dealing with confiscatory proceedings."

The aforesaid directions were reiterated in the case of

Umesh Sah (supra). Once again in the case of Bunilal Sah @

Munilal Sah (supra) this Court dealt in detail the various

provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016

(hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act or the Act of 2016).

In the recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case

of Dharmendra Mahto (supra) this Court has issued further

directions:-

"It is seen that till date, in large number of cases, position about conclusion of the proceedings, be it under Section 58, 92 or 93 remains the same.

We further direct that all proceedings under Section 58 must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of ninety days from the date of appearance of the parties. Further, Appeal/Revision, if any, be also decided within a period of thirty days from the date of initiation, failing which the "things" (vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been released in terms of several orders passed by this Court, reference whereof stands mentioned in Bunilal Sah @ Munilal Sah (supra).

Wherever confiscatory proceedings stand concluded and parties could not file the appeal/revision within the Patna High Court CWJC No.10101 of 2020 dt.18-01-2021

statutory period of limitation, as already stands directed in several matters, if they were to initiate such proceedings within next thirty days, the plea of limitation would not come in their way of adjudication of such proceedings on merit."

We find that the direction issued by this Court in the

aforementioned cases are equally applicable in the facts of the

present case. The F.I.R./prosecution report was lodged/filed on

27.10.2019, the vehicle was seized. Confiscation proceeding has

not been initiated as yet. Because of the delay in initiation of

confiscation proceeding, the vehicle is losing its road worthiness

and the depreciation in the re-sale value of the vehicle is an

ultimate loss to the State.

Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to make

himself/herself available on 04.02.2021 at 10:30 A.M. before the

appropriate authority which may be in the attending facts, the

Collector of the Vaishali District. If the Collector is not

himself/herself dealing with the matter on account of delegation of

power or assignment of work to another officer of his/her District,

he/she shall fix a date directing the parties to appear before the

said officer, which date shall be not exceeding one week. Also,

he/she shall inform the said authority of fixing of such date. On

appearance of the petitioner through his/her learned Advocate, the

appropriate authority shall consider passing any order/interim

order, as the case may be, in terms of the direction of this Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10101 of 2020 dt.18-01-2021

We clarify that convenience of parties, specially during

the time of Pandemic Covid-19 is of prime importance and it shall

be open for the authority to hear the parties with the use of

technology, i.e. Video Conferencing facility etc.

We only hope and expect that the Authorities under the

Act shall take appropriate action at the earliest and in accordance

with law, within the time schedule fixed, failing which the

vehicle/property/things liable for confiscation shall be deemed to

have been released without any further reference to this Court.

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to

such remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law if

the need so arises subsequently.

Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations/directions.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

( Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

anay/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date        19.01.2021
Transmission Date