Surendra Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 7 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9565 of 2020

     ======================================================

Surendra Choudhary S/o Mahesh Chaudhary Resident of village- Bhatbigha,

P.s.- Sirdala, District- Nawada

... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Prohibition and

Excise Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Excise Officer, Bihar Prohibition and excise Department, Nawada

3. The District Magistrate, Nawada

4. The Superintendent of Police, District of Nawada, Bihar

5. The Officer in Charge Sirdala Police station, District- Gaya

... ... Respondents.

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Manish, SC-5

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 04-01-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

"(I) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the vehicle/Passion Pro motorcycle bearing Reg. No. BR-27H-7662, Chassis No.-

MBLHA10BSGHL18698, Engine No. HA10EVGHL22911 in favour of the petitioner who is owner of the said motorcycle seized in Sirdala P.S. Case No. 493/19 under section 30(a) of Bihiar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 lying in the premises of Police station and subject to natural decay by furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge Excise, Nawada.

(II) To quash the order dated 13-01-2020 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge Excise, Nawada in connection with Sirdala P.S. Case No. 439/19 offences u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 whereby and where under he has rejected the petition of petitioner for release of alleged motorcycle.

(III) To quash the notice dated 14-12-2019 issued to brother of the petitioner issued by District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nawada vide Case No. 744(M)2019 whereby and where under the learned District Magistrate, Nawada ordered to appear before him on 05-02-2020 and filed show cause for confiscated motorcycle bearing Reg. No. BR27H/7662 which has been seized in Sirdala P.S. Case No. 439/2019.

(IV) Any other relief/s to which the petitioners are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the 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). Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

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).

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 Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

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 23.10.2019, the vehicle

was seized and a confiscation proceeding has been initiated but

the same is pending for almost one year. Because of the delay in

conclusion 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 23.01.2021 at 10:30 A.M.

before the appropriate authority which may be in the attending

facts, the Collector of the Nawada District before whom

Confiscation Case No.744(M) of 2019 is pending. If the Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

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

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.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9565 of 2020 dt.04-01-2021

Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observations/directions.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

K.C.Jha/-

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date          06.01.2021
Transmission Date