[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Nilam Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18918 of 2025
======================================================
Nilam Devi, Wife of Pramod Kumar Singh, Resident of Village Kumahu, P.S.
Shivsagar, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Prohibition, Excise & Registration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhabua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. The Superintendent of Excise, Bhabua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
7. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bhabua, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
8. The Officer in Charge of Police Station Chand, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to SC-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 08-12-2025
Heard Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned AC to SC-12 for the State
of Bihar.
2. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in Excise
Revision Case No. 21 of 2025 by the Secretary (Prohibition and
Excise), Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the Secretary being
the Revisional Authority has refused to interfere with the appellate
Patna High Court CWJC No.18918 of 2025 dt.08-12-2025
order passed in Excise Appeal No. 76 of 2025 by the Excise
Commissioner, Bihar at Patna and the confiscation order passed by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kaimur in Excise
(Vehicle Confiscation) Case No. 192 of 2025.
3. It appears that the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Brezza Car
bearing Registration No. BR24AL-7605, Chassis No.
MA3RYHK1SPL339021, Engine No. K15CN9381102 was found
carrying allegedly 115.385 litres of liquor. It further appears on
perusal of the impugned orders that the vehicle in question has not
been released citing sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up to date)
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2021 (as amended up to
date)').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule
12A was inserted in the Rules of 2021 by Amendment Rules,
2022. The purpose behind incorporation of Rule 12A was to allow
release of the vehicles seized in connection with transportation of
liquor. One of the factors required to be considered for purpose of
deciding the quantum of penalty is the quantum of liquor
recovered from the vehicle. It is submitted that in an identical
situation where the vehicle was not released citing public interest
as contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as
Patna High Court CWJC No.18918 of 2025 dt.08-12-2025
amended up to date), this Court had occasion to consider the said
Rule and in that context, this Court in the case of Manjeet Kumar
Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 10126 of
2025) has held that the word 'public interest' cannot be construed
in a rigid sense under the scheme of the Rules of 2021 (as
amended up to date). Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is
ready to deposit the penalty as may be fixed by the competent
authority in accordance with rules for purpose of release of the
vehicle.
5. Learned AC to SC-12 for the State submits that the
impugned order has been passed keeping in view 'public interest'
as the vehicle was found carrying 115.385 litres of liquor.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AC to SC-12 for the State, we are of the considered
opinion that the release of the vehicle cannot be refused on the
solitary ground of quantum of liquor found on the vehicle. The
spirit of Rule 12A has been considered by this Court in its
judgment in the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav (supra). The
relevant paragraphs from the said judgment are being extracted
hereunder for a ready reference:-
"11. Since Rule 12A(3) talks of 'public
interest' but it has not been clearly
explained in the Rules, we would take a cue
on this from the judgment of the Hon'ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.18918 of 2025 dt.08-12-2025
Supreme Court in the case of Saiyad
Hussain Abbas Rizwi (supra) and
Kameshwar Singh (supra). To us, it
appears that the legislatures in their wisdom
have inserted Rule 12A with a conscious
decision to allow release of the vehicles on
payment of penalty. One of the factors to be
taken into consideration for the purpose of
arriving at the quantum of penalty is the
quantum of liquors loaded on the vehicle,
therefore, only on the ground of quantity of
liquor, the competent authority cannot
reject an application for release of the
vehicle.
12. In our considered opinion, it is to be
decided by the competent authority in
appropriate cases keeping in view several
factors such as whether the vehicle has been
caught in commission of offence repeatedly
or that the owner of the vehicle could not be
verified, there may be a case where the
liquors are found spurious and the owner of
the vehicle may be found involved in
multiple cases of like nature under the
liquor laws or any other consideration of
like nature. In such cases, the competent
authority may form an opinion taking note
of the 'public interest'.
13. If the competent authority starts
rejecting an application for release of the
vehicle even if it is found involved in the
transportation of liquor for the first time,
only by taking note of the quantum of
liquor, it would act as a stumbling block in
implementation of the scheme of Rule
12A, that would, in fact, frustrate the
mandate of law. The word 'public interest'
as occurring under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A
cannot be given a rigid meaning, it has to
be construed in the context of the scheme of
the statute and it must take its colour from
the statute in which it occurs."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18918 of 2025 dt.08-12-2025
7. Having regard to the judgment of this Court, we are of
the considered opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders and direct
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) to consider the
request of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on payment of
adequate penalty in terms of Rule 12A of the Rules.
8. Let such consideration be given by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bhabhua within a period of one month from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.
9. In the meantime, the vehicle in question shall not be
auction sold.
10. This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
lekhi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 09.12.2025
Transmission Date
