Santosh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 43 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9811 of 2020
     ======================================================

Santosh Kumar Pandey, Son of Kanhaiya Pandey Resident of Village- Tatalpur, P.O.- Bahuara, Police Station- Nawanagar, District- Buxar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The District Magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram.

3. The Superintendent of Police Rohtas at Dehri-on- Sone.

4. The District Excise Officer Rohtas at Sasaram.

5. The S.H.O., Dawath Police Station, District- Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 06-01-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

"For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authority concerned i.e. Respondent No. 2 to release the Bolero bearing registration no. BR03P5190 (hereinafter vehicle in question), in favour of the petitioner which has illegally been seized in connection with Dawath P.S.Case No. 208/2019 dated 22.12.2019 registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section Patna High Court CWJC No.9811 of 2020 dt.06-01-2021

30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and any other writ/writs for granting any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

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).

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9811 of 2020 dt.06-01-2021

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 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). Patna High Court CWJC No.9811 of 2020 dt.06-01-2021

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 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. was lodged on 22.12.2019, 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9811 of 2020 dt.06-01-2021

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 25.01.2021 at 10:30 A.M.

before the appropriate authority which may be in the attending

facts, the Collector of the Rohtas 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.

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9811 of 2020 dt.06-01-2021

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)

( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

sujit/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          08.01.2021.
Transmission Date