[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Sushil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13123 of 2025
======================================================
Sushil Kumar Singh, Son of Krishananadan Prasad Singh @ Krishanandan
Prasad, Resident of Village- Manika Urf Bishunpur Chand, Police Station -
Mushahari, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Excise Department, New
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary Excise Department, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Secretary (Liquor Prohibition and Excise), Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
5. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Excise Superintendent, Muzaffarpur.
8. The Officer-in-Charge, Sakra Police Station, District - Muzaffarpur.
9. Bhola Sah, S/o - Anandi Sah, Resident of Village - Chausima, P.S. - Sakra,
District - Muzaffarpur.
10. The E.O.U. through S.P., E.O.U, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hari Kishore Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Dev, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sumant Kumar Singh, AC to GA-2
For the Respondent No.9: Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the E.O.U. : Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 18-12-2025
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned AC to GA-2 to the State and learned counsel for
respondent No. 9.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
2/32
2. Pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2025, the ADM,
Muzaffarpur, Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Muzaffarpur
and the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Muzaffapur (in short the
"MVI, Muzaffarpur") are present in person with the records.
3. This Court has interacted with all the officers in
course of hearing.
Reliefs Prayed
4. (i) The present writ application has been filed
seeking a writ in nature of a writ of certiorari to quash and
cancel the auction sale of Mahindra Scorpio S9 vehicle, bearing
Registration No. BR06PE-1648, Chasis No.
MAITA2WR2J2L10413 and Engine No. WRJ4L10413, which
has been auctioned on 31.03.2023 vide Memo No. 939 dated
08.04.2023
(Annexure-P/4). The petitioner has alternatively
prayed for award of a compensation to the tune of Rs.
12,12,517/-, which was the insured value of the vehicle at the
time of seizure.
(ii) The order passed by the Revisional Authority on
05.06.2025 in Excise Revision Case No. 11 of 2025 (Annexure-
P/9) by which the Secretary (Liquor Prohibition and Excise),
Govt. of Bihar, Patna has refused to interfere with the order of
confiscation of the vehicle and the appellate order has also been
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
challenged.
(iii) In paragraph 1(iv), the petitioner has specifically
prayed for setting up an enquiry into the affairs of the Excise
Department, Muzaffarpur in the matter of auction of vehicle,
wherein a racket is operating and only few number of people
get a chance to participate in the auction, under hand dealing is
allegedly rampant. The petitioner has prayed for appropriate
direction for action against the culprit persons/employees.
Facts in brief
5. The petitioner is the owner of Mahindra Scorpio S9
vehicle of the description stated hereinabove. The vehicle has
been seized in connection with Sakra P.S. Case No. 722 of 2020
under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
30(a), 41, 56(B) and 56(D) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act 2016 (in short the "Excise Act or the Act of 2016").
6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had
approached the Court of learned Exclusive Special Excise
Judge-1, Muzaffapur for release of the vehicle. The learned
Court ordered for release of the same vide order dated
11.01.2023, but the same was not released in the favour of the
petitioner. It is further stated that no notice of confiscation
proceeding was received by the petitioner, but the vehicle was
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
auctioned in favour of one Bhola Sah (respondent No. 9) on
31.03.2023. It is stated regarding said Bhola Sah that he is the
man set up by the then Dy. S.P. (East), Muzaffarpur.
Order dated 14.11.2025
7. Taking note of the kind of averments made in the
writ application, this Court, while hearing the matter on
14.11.2025, passed the following order:-
"The facts revealed in the present writ
application are mind-blowing. A vehicle Mahindra
Scorpio S9 manufactured in November, 2018 having
an insurance value of Rs.12,12,517/- during the period
January, 2019-January, 2022 was seized on 25.12.2020
by the officer in-charge of Sakra police station, namely,
Lal Kishore Gupta. He lodged a First Information
Report on the basis of his self-statement alleging that
from the Scorpio vehicle of the petitioner there was a
recovery of 3.750 liters of foreign liquor. As advised to
the petitioner, he applied for release of the vehicle in
the court of learned Exclusive Excise Court No.1,
Muzaffarpur where the case was pending and the
learned court vide its order dated 11.01.2023 directed
release of the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the
petitioner.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that
the vehicle was not released and the same was being
used by Dy.S.P. East, Muzaffarpur. In this connection,
he filed a petition (Annexure-P/2) in the court wherein
it was brought to the notice of the learned court that the
vehicle had not been released and the said Scorpio
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
vehicle is being used by the then Dy.S.P. East,
Muzaffapur. The petitioner filed yet another
application before the learned court on 07.10.2023, a
report was called for from the S.H.O., Sakra and
District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. This time a report
came that the petitioner's vehicle has been auction sold
on 31.03.2023 and one Bhola Sah had purchased the
vehicle.
3. It is submitted that the vehicle was sold to
Bhola Sah after passing an order of confiscation
combinedly of 490 vehicles. There was a news in the
newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' that 490 vehicles are
being auction sold. The vehicle of the petitioner was
sold in favour of Bhola Sah for a sum of Rs.3,85,000/-
only and possession was handed over to him.
4. The effort of the petitioner to challenge the
order of confiscation before the Excise Commissioner
in Excise Appeal Case No.30/2024 and the Secretary
(Liquor Prohibition and Excise), Government of Bihar
failed as both the authorities rejected the appeal and
revision.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the State-respondents wherein the seizure of the vehicle and
the auction sale have been defended.
6. We have prima-facie perused the counter
affidavit carefully and have noticed that many significant
aspects of the matter have been completely missed out by
the respondent authorities. We take note of those issues
hereunder:-
(i) The vehicle in question was seized and a
confiscation proceeding is said to have been initiated but
the counter affidavit of the State nowhere discloses that
after verification of the owner of the vehicle a notice was
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
served upon the owner/petitioner informing him of the on-
going confiscation proceeding.
(ii) The vehicle in question was confiscated,
however, the said ex-parte order of confiscation has not
been brought on record with the counter affidavit.
(iii) There is no answer to the specific statement of
the Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025(3) dt.14-11-
2025 4/6 petitioner that despite the order for release of the
vehicle by the concerned court, the vehicle was in
possession of the then Dy.S.P. East, Muzaffarpur and he
was using the said vehicle.
(iv) No notice fixing date of auction or giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to get release of the vehicle
before auction or to otherwise approach the auctioning
authority in this connection has been brought to the notice
of the Court with the counter affidavit.
(v) The vehicle was only two years old at the time
of its seizure, it is stated that the vehicle in question was
auction sold on 31.03.2023 to one Bhola Sah for
Rs.3,85,000/- only i.e. for almost only about 30% of the
insured value.
7. The entire exercise of power right from the
seizing officer i.e. S.H.O. to the confiscating authority and
the authorities who indulged in auction sale are indicating
foul play in action, arbitrary and malafide. From
25.12.2020 to 31.03.2023 who was using the vehicle.
8. In such circumstance, we issue notice to the
State-respondents 1 to 8 to file a supplementary counter
affidavit stating as to why the impugned orders be not set
aside and the State be directed to pay the petitioner the
value of the vehicle as indicated in the insurance document
together with interest from the date of seizure till the date of
payment and such amount be recovered from the pocket of
the erring officers.
9. We direct that the auction purchaser be made
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
respondent no.9 in course of the day.
10. Issue notice to the respondent no.9 through both
modes i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under
ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed
within one week from today.
11. The auction purchaser shall keep the vehicle
safely and shall not transfer the vehicle or hand over the
possession thereof to any person during pendency of the
application.
12. We have noticed that there is a statement to the
effect that altogether 490 vehicles have been auction sold in
one go in the same manner.
13. We call for a report from the District
Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in this regard giving
comprehensive information as to whether the procedures
established by law in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 as amended vide
Amendment Rules, 2022 together with the procedures
applicable in the matter of auction sale have been followed
or not. Let such affidavits be filed within three weeks from
today.
14. The attention of the District Magistrate,
Muzaffarpur is being drawn towards the matters appearing
from the records from which it appears that in the auction
one particular person has purchased 8 vehicles in the
auction and some other persons have purchased in lot of 4-5
vehicles. In some of the matters, this Court has already
directed the Economic Offence Unit to look into the racket
which is going on in the matter of sale of the vehicles. The
District Magistrate, Muzzafarpur shall submit a preliminary
report in this regard and all such persons who have been
regularly participating in the auction purchase of the
vehicles and have purchased the vehicles in lots particularly
those who are related to or connected with the officials of
the Excise Department and the police officers posted in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
different police stations of Muzaffarpur be also identified
and a complete report be sent to this Court. We would tag
this case with CWJC No. 4697 of 2025 for further action.
15. List this matter on 15.12.2025 under the same
heading maintaining its position."
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a supplementary
counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents nos.
5 and 7. Initially, the counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 3 and 7 sworn by the Assistant Commissioner,
Prohibition, Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, a counter affidavit also
came to be filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 sworn by the Dy.
S.P., Cyber, P.S.-Muzaffapur and respondent no. 8.
9. The case of the official respondents is based on the
stand taken in the supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 7 and for most of the answers,
the respondents have relied upon the averments made therein.
10. In the counter affidavit, efforts have also been
made to impress upon this Court that the petitioner has got some
criminal antecedents. However, while hearing the matter, we
have made it clear that in the present writ application we are not
concerned with the criminal cases pending against the petitioner.
One of the pleas in the supplementary counter affidavit is that
the then Departmental Head in the Excise Department issued a
letter No. 633 dated 25.01.2023 containing several instructions
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
in the matter of confiscation and auction sale of the seized
vehicles. In course of hearing, however, the same has not been
pressed. We have gone through the said Memo No. 633. To us,
it is crystal clear that Memo No. 633 cannot prevail upon the
statutory requirements under Rules 13A and 14 of the Rules of
2021 (as amended up-to-date). We are only examining the
grievance of the petitioner with respect to the order of
confiscation and subsequent auction sale of the vehicle without
following the established procedure of law.
Order dated 17.12.2025
11. This writ application was taken up for
consideration yesterday, i.e., 17.12.2025. What transpired in the
hearing are recorded in the order drawn on 17.12.2025, which
we reproduce hereinbelow for a ready reference:-
"We have heard this matter at length at
10:30 AM. Certain questions were put to learned
counsel for the State keeping in view the statements
made in the counter affidavit/ Supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 7.
2. Since learned counsel for the State was
not well aware of the complete facts, we thought it just
and proper to hear the ADM, Muzaffarpur and the
Excise Superintendent, Muzaffarpur who are the
members of the team responsible for auction of the
confiscated vehicles.
3. The matter was taken up again at 02:15
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
PM and on our request Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned
Senior Counsel and learned Standing Counsel for the
Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna along with
learned Associate Counsel Mr. Vijay Anand has
appeared. This is in view of our previous order
wherein we have indicated that this case would be
tagged with CWJC No. 4697 of 2025.
3. It has transpired in course of interactions
with ADM, Muzaffapur and the Superintendent of
Excise, Muzaffarpur that initially, a Confiscation Case
No. 79 / 2021-22 was registered in connection with the
vehicle in question. The Officers present online have
stated that on record though a format of the notice is
available but there is no proof of dispatch of the notice
to the petitioner. They have also confirmed that no
service report of the notice is available on the record.
4. It is stated that later on the said
confiscation case was abandoned and a fresh
confiscation case called common Confiscation Case
No. 03 / 2022-23 was registered. In the said common
confiscation case, again no notice was issued to the
petitioner and the other vehicle owners whose vehicles
were proposed to be confiscated. By one stroke of pen,
the then Deputy Development Commissioner,
Muzaffapur passed a common order of confiscation of
altogether 490 vehicles including vehicle of the
petitioner. A copy of the order as contained in Memo
No. 723 dated 15.03.2023 has been brought on record
with the supplementary counter affidavit. The Officers
have informed that after passing of this common order
of confiscation, the auction sale of the vehicles were
conducted. The first auction sale notice was published
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
on 25.03.2023 in which the date of auction sale is
mentioned between 28.03.2023 and 31.03.2023 at
11:00 AM in Zila Parishad Bhawan, Muzaffarpur.
Prior to this, notice was published on 25.02.2023 in
which the date of auction was mentioned as
23.03.2023 at 11:00 AM and it was provided therein
that the vehicles which will be left over would be
auction sold on 28.03.2023. The auction notice
contains the minimum price of the vehicle assessed by
the Motor Vehicle Inspector.
5. This Court has noticed that the minimum
price of the vehicles are though mentioned in the
notice but the basis of such price is not known.
Nothing is stated about the parameters followed for
purpose of assessment of the minimum value of the
vehicle. For example, minimum price of one Alto Car
is fixed at Rs.20,000/-, minimum price of a Tata
Company Truck has been shown at Rs.1,90,000/-. A
Mahindra XUV 500 has been fixed at Rs.2,95,000/-,
WagonR is for Rs.25,000/- and a 109 DCM Truck is of
Rs.1,15,000/-. One Passion Pro has been valued at
Rs.2950/- whereas a Mahindra Bolero Pickup is
valued at Rs.5000/- only. The vehicle in question
being a Scorpio which was seized in connection with
Sakra P.S. Case No. 722 of 2020 has been valued at
Rs.3,80,000/- as against the insured value of
Rs.12,12,517/-. This vehicle is only two years old. The
basis of fixing the valuation is presently not known to
the ADM and the Superintendent of Excise, however,
they have assured this Court that they will bring the
entire documents including the valuation report for
perusal by this Court tomorrow i.e. 18.12.2025 for
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
physical verification at 10:30 AM.
6. It has come on record that in the sale
conducted by the Auctioning Authority some of the
purchasers have purchased 8 to 10 vehicles. For
example one Shri Rohit Kumar, Son of Shri
Shailendra Das has purchased 8 vehicles for an
amount of Rs.28 lakhs/- whereas one Shri Acchelal
Rai has purchased four vehicles out of which two are
Tata trucks one is pickup and another is tempo for a
sum of Rs.3,62,000/- only. An another person Shri
Kailash Rai had purchased 9 vehicles for a sum of
Rs.1,90,000/-. The vehicle involved in this case has
been sold out to Bhola Das (Respondent No. 9) for a
sum of Rs.3,85,000/-. What has transpired is that the
Auctioning Authority are also providing the platform
to the auction purchasers for further sale of the vehicle
and at the instance of the auction purchaser, the
auction vehicle is transferred directly in the name of
purchaser from the auction purchasers. This is
something a procedure unknown in auction matters.
Even the Excise Superintendent has stated that such
kind of facilities cannot be provided and the vehicle
can only be transferred in the name of auction
purchasers.
7. To this Court, it appears prima-facie at
this stage that the auction sale of altogether 490
vehicles including that of the petitioner has been
carried out without following established procedure of
law. The matter of valuation of the vehicles and then
sale of the vehicles in one go by way of notices as
aforesaid do not inspire confidence of the Court.
8. It must be added at this stage that we
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
called upon the Excise Superintendent to show that the
auction notices were published in the newspapers
having wider circulation in the areas of the vehicle
owners whose vehicles were sought to be auction sold
but the Excise Superintendent has stated that for the
present the papers in which the notices have been
published are not available in his record but he would
produce the same tomorrow.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.
9 is present. He has informed that the vehicle has been
sold to one Anita Devi, Wife of Raj Kapur Prasad,
Resident of VillageGehuapo Jamo, P.S.-Jamo Bazar,
District-Siwan. He has informed that Respondent No.
9 is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of
the vehicles. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.
9 shall seek instruction and inform this Court as to till
date how many vehicles Respondent No. 9 has
purchased in auction sale and whether he had sold the
auction purchased vehicle(s) to any relative or family
member of any Excise Officer or Police Officer. The
complete information shall be furnished to the Court
tomorrow.
10. Let this matter be listed tomorrow i.e.
on 18.12.2025 at 10:30 AM at the top of the list.
11. The ADM, Muzaffapur, the Excise
Superintendent, Muzaffapur and the Motor Vehicle
Inspector all shall come with the records and show the
entire information as recorded hereinabove in order to
assist this Court to reach at a proper conclusion. After
hearing them, the Court will consider with regard to
the action required to be taken.
12. We request Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
Senior Counsel for the Economic Offences Unit to
make himself available at the time of hearing."
Factual position emerging today
12. Today when the officers came with the records,
this Court provided them an opportunity to address at length.
The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Muzaffapur personally
made some submissions while answering the queries of this
Court. We have reduced in writing the questions posed by this
Court and the answer to the same provided by the Assistant
Commissioner, Excise are as under:-
(i) This Court wanted to know as to whether prior to
passing of the common confiscation order in Case No. 03/2022-
23, any notice to show-cause as required under Rule 13A of the
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up-to-
date) was served upon the petitioner?
The Assistant Commission, Prohibition informed this
Court that no notice to show-cause was issued to the petitioner
prior to passing of the common order of confiscation in Case
No. 03/2022-23. However, prior to that, in Confiscation Case
No. 79 of 2021-22, a notice was sent to the petitioner, but the
record is not containing any proof of dispatch of the said notice
and there is no proof of service of the same upon the petitioner.
13. It is submitted that a general notice was published
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
in the newspaper "Praphat Khabar", published from Muzaffapur
on 18.02.2023, wherein the vehicle owners were informed that
they may file an application in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up-to date)
(hereinafter called 'the Rules of 2021') for release of the
vehicles and if they want to get release the vehicle, then they
should deposit 50% of the latest insured value of the vehicle,
whereafter, on submission of the proposal for release, the matter
shall be heard. The notice published in the newspaper fixed two
dates, i.e., 25.02.2023 and, thereafter, 04.03.2023 as the dates of
hearing.
(underline is mine)
14. It has been admitted by the officers present in
Court that for all 527 vehicles, the same and one date of hearing,
i.e., 25.02.2023 was fixed as first date of hearing and then again
one date was fixed, i.e., 04.03.2023 for all the 527 vehicles.
15. It is also admitted that in terms of sub-Rule (3) of
Rule 13A of the Rules of 2021, the procedure prescribed in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for service of summons has
not been followed.
16. This Court has been further informed that the
Excise Superintendent, Muzaffapur wrote a letter, bearing No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
470 dated 20.02.2023, to the MVI, Muzaffarpur for submission
of the valuation report of 527 vehicles which were lying in the
premises of different Police Stations in the District of
Muzaffapur. Within two days thereafter, the MVI, Muzaffapur
provided valuation of all the 527 vehicles vide his Letter No. 62
dated 22.02.2023.
17. This Court wanted to know from the Assistant
Commissioner, Prohibition, Muzaffpur as to whether it would
have been possible for the MVI to visit altogether 22 Police
Stations within whose premises the 527 vehicles were lying and
to submit a composite report within two days of writing of the
letter in this regard by the Excise Superintendent, Muzaffapur,
the Assistant Commissioner has categorically submitted that it
would not have been possible for the MVI to submit a report
within two days in respect to such huge number of vehicles.
18. Then, this Court called upon the officers including
the present MVI, Muzaffapur to show as to what is the basis of
valuation of the 527 vehicles?
19. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Gupta, MVI, Muzaffapur has
stated, in presence of all, that he did not find any cheat of paper
on the records showing the basis of valuation of the individual
vehicles as mentioned in the letter of the then MVI, Muzaffapur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
There is nothing in the record to show that he had visited the
premises of the Police Stations to have the physical verification
of the vehicles in order to find out their conditions. No
photographs of the vehicles have been preserved. There is
nothing on the record to show that what prevailed upon the
mind of the then MVI, Muzaffarpur to reach on a conclusion
that a particular vehicle be valued at a particular amount.
Procedure followed in conducting auction sale-
auction notice issued before passing of confiscation order
20. Then, this Court moved towards examining the
procedure followed in the matter of auction sale of the vehicles.
It is found that two short-term public notices were issued for
auction sale of the vehicles. The first short-term auction sale
notice (annexed from page 77 to 92 of the supplementary
counter affidavit) was issued on 25.02.2023. In the short-term
notice, the date of auction of all the vehicles have been
mentioned and according to this, the auction sale was to be
conducted on 01.03.2023 and 23.03.2023, whereafter the left
over vehicles were to be auction sold on 28.03.2023.
21. Having gone through the first auction sale notice,
this Court called upon the officers to answer as to how the
auction sale notice was issued on 25.02.2023 when the common
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
order of confiscation was yet not passed and according to the
notice published in the "Prabhat Khabar" on 18.02.2023, the
date of hearing of the matters were on 25.02.2023 and
04.03.2023. There was no answer to this query of the Court and
it has been admitted that the auction sale notice was issued on
25.02.2023, even as on the said date, there was no order of
confiscation of the vehicles. The order of confiscation has been
brought on record with the supplementary counter affidavit as
part of Annexure-A series.
22. It is evident that a common order of confiscation
has been passed in respect of 490 vehicles vide Memo No. 723
dated 15.03.2023. The vehicle of the petitioner finds mentioned
at Serial No. 349 of this common order of confiscation.
23. Thus, the admitted position is that common
confiscation order came much after the notice of auction sale
was issued. The another disturbing feature of this notice is that
the auction sale was to be conducted on 01.03.2023 which
means it was to be conducted even before the second date of
hearing fixed in the notice published in the Prabhat Khabar.
24. The second notice for auction sale was issued on
25.03.2023 (Page 93-97 of the supplementary counter affidavit)
and vide this short notice the people were informed that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
auction sale shall be conducted from 28.03.2023 to 31.03.2023.
Under this notice several vehicles were put on auction including
the vehicle of the petitioner. In all the auction sale notices the
minimum value of the vehicle was indicated as per the report
received from the then MVI, Muzaffarpur which we have
discussed hereinabove and the kind of values fixed by the then
MVI, Muzaffarpur has been indicated in our previous order.
Auction sale notice nor published in Newspaper as
per Rule 14
25. This Court wanted to know as to whether these
auction notices which are said to have been issued for auction
sale were published in any newspaper having wide circulation in
the area, the Assistant Commissioner Prohibition, Muzaffarpur
has submitted that as regards the first notice issued on
25.02.2023 though he finds a copy of letter which was sent to
the Director of Information and Public Relation Department,
Government of Bihar to publish the same in newspaper, with
regard to the second auction notice under which the vehicle of
the petitioner was sold, there is nothing on the record to show
that any request was made to the department to publish the
auction sale notice in a newspaper. On record, there is nothing
to show that the any paper publication was done. It is not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
contested that as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2021,
before the auction, the Collector or the officer has to cause
valuation of the vehicle done and then to invite bid through
public advertisement in at least one local/vernacular newspaper
and further the sub-rule 3 provides that where he does not
receive any offer for a particular item in the first attempt of
auction, he may invite bids again and after three attempts if he
does not receive any bid, he may dispose of the said vehicle on
'as is where is' basic regardless of the valuation.
26. Admittedly, in this case no bid was invited
through public advertisement in a newspaper and there is a
blatant violation of the Rules.
27. In the aforementioned background of the materials
placed before this Court and the statements made, we have been
left with the task of examining the impugned orders of
confiscation and auction sale and further we have to take a view
as to whether the materials placed before this court are such that
the conscience of this Court requires the matter to be sent to an
investigating agency of repute to investigate into the materrs
brought to the notice of this court regarding the rampant
corruption and under hand dealing in conduct of auction sale?
28. At this stage in order to consider this aspect of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
matter, we have also interacted with Respondent No. 9 who is
present in person. He has informed that he had purchased 12
vehicles in auction sale for a total amount of Rs. 10,65,000/-.
According to him out of these 12 vehicles he has sold six
vehicles in scrap but for this he has not taken any permission
from the prescribed authority and even the Registration Number
of the vehicles have not been surrendered. He has stated that he
got information about the auction sale of the vehicles from one
of his friends who sale sweets near the place where the auction
sale was to be conducted. He got the vehicle sold to one Anita
Devi through a person namely Pervej Alam who is also involved
in sale and purchase of vehicles. He has named some persons
also with whom he is involved in purchase of vehicles in
auction sale. Respondent No. 9 has stated that he sold the
vehicle to one Anita Devi at the instance of said Pervej Alam
therefore he does not know much about her and the connections
of the auction purchaser or the persons with the officers of the
Excise Department and the local police stations.
Conclusion
29. Having regard to the entire discussions and the
materials placed before us, we have no difficulty in arriving on
an irresistible conclusion that in this case the authorities who
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
were involved in the confiscation and auction sale of the
vehicles have not shown any respect for the rule of law.
Whether they are negligent, not competent or are acting for
extraneous consideration is a question. Anyone of these things
may be possible. It is very difficult to take a view that the
officers holding such high ranks in the Government Department
would not be aware of law/legal provisions and or they would
violate law or provisions with impunity without there being any
extraneous considerations. What has happened in this case is
writ large on the face of the records. Despite there being specific
provisions under rule 13(A) and 14 of the Rules of 2021 (as
amended up-to-date) these authorities have not taken any
interest in observing the procedures. We reproduce rule 13(A)
and Rule 14 of the Rules of 2021 as under for a ready reference:
[13A. Procedure of confiscation of
vehicle/conveyance etc.-(1) Where it is decided by
the Collector that the vehicle is not to be released on
penalty of where the owner does not pay the required
penalty, the confiscation proceeding shall be initiated.
The proposal for confiscation of the conveyance shall
be sent by the police/excise officer to the Collector (or
an officer authorized by him) within 30 days from the
date of seizure. The officer concerned shall
immediately start the confiscation proceeding.
In case of delay of beyond 30 days, in
submission of the proposal for confiscation, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
police/excise officer will have to explain the delay.
(2) The officer concerned, on receipt of
proposal for confiscation of any vehicle(s) or other
conveyances from police/excise officer, shall issue
show cause notice to owner of the said vehicle or the
vessel or other conveyance. Simultaneously, he shall
issue notice to the District Transport Officer and the
Chemical Examineursly, their reports.
(3) Such notice issued by the officer shall
be served as per procedure prescribed in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for service of summons. He
shall obtain report from the District Transport Officer
or any authority authorized for the purpose of
registration of the conveyance and the report of
chemical examiner within 30 days of seizure.
(4) The officer shall provide reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the owner. The
investigating/inquiry officer shall also be given
opportunity to participate in such hearing.
(5) If, on the date fixed for hearing, the
person(s) to whom the notice has validly been served
fail(s) to appear in the proceeding on two consecutive
dates fixed for hearing, the confiscating authority shall
proceed to pass the order ex-parte.
(6) The officer, after hearing the parties, on
satisfaction that an offence has been committed in
terms of the Act, shall pass appropriate order with
respect to seized vehicle or vessel or conveyance as
the case may be.
(7) The officer shall ensure that the order
for confiscation is passed within 90 days from the date
of seizure of the vehicle.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
(8) Any person aggrieved by the order
passed by the Collector under the provisions of the Act
may file appeal in the manner prescribed under these
Rules.]
[14. Auction or Destruction of
Seized/Confiscated items.-The items
seized/confiscated by the Collector or any officer
authorized by him may be disposed of by him, either
by auction or by destruction, in the following manner:
(1) If the Collector or the officer
authorized by him, is satisfied that any seized article,
is liable to speedy and natural decay or is of trifling
value or can be put to misuse or endangering public
safety or occupying public space, he may, in exercise
or power under Section-57 and Section-57A of the
Act, order for destruction of the same at any time
before passing the order of confiscation. The
Collector or the officer concerned shall ensure that
any seized liquor should not be allowed to remain
stored for a very long time. He shall ensure that the
said liquor is destroyed within 15 days of its seizure
after having obtained the report of the chemist.
(2) The confiscated
animal/vehicle/vessel/other conveyance premises or
part thereof shall be put to public auction and sold to
the highest bidder within a period of one month from
the date of attainment of finality of order of the
confiscating authority or such extended period as
deemed fit by the Collector/authorized officer or may
be put government use in the manner prescribed.
(underline is mine)
(3) Before the auction, the Collector or the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
officer may cause the valuation of the
vehicle/conveyance/premises. He shall then invite bid
through public advertisement in at least one
local/vernacular newspaper. Where he does not
receive any offer for a particular item in the first
attempt of auction, he may invite bids again. If, after
three such attempts, he does not receive any bid, he
may dispose of the said vehicle/conveyance on an "as
is where is" basis regardless of the valuation."
30. We have noticed that at first instance there is a
complete violation of sub-Rule (2) and sub-Rule (3) of Rule
13A of the Rules of 2021. No show-cause notice has been
served upon the petitioner. In second instance when a paper
publication of notice was done on 18.02.2023 in Prabhat
Khabar, the confiscating authority made a condition in the
notice that the vehicle owners would be liable to deposit 50% of
the insured value as penalty amount and after deposit of the said
amount they can file an application in Form-IV for release of the
vehicle.
31. In the opinion of this court this kind of condition
imposed upon the vehicle owners to first deposit 50% of the
penalty amount even as the penalty amount was yet not fixed is
completely an unmindful act and it was impossible to comply
with it. While fixing the date for hearing in the common
confiscation case two dates were fixed perhaps keeping in view
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
the mandate of sub-Rule (5) of Rule 13 of the Rules of 2021.
Those dates were 25.02.2023 and 04.03.2023. It is surprising
that for altogether 527 vehicles one date was fixed by the
competent authority. This is nothing but in the nature of an
empty formality because it may be anybody's opinion that the
competent authority could not have considered cases of
confiscation in respect of 527 vehicles on one date. Again the
second date i.e. 04.03.2023 was fixed for all the 527 vehicles.
32. This Court understands that the competent
authority and the officers engaged in the auction sale were
proceeding with a preconcerted mind to auction sale all the
vehicles in one go while doing empty formality as a skin saving
measure.
33. It is quite disturbing that these authorities who
were sitting on the higher echelon of the posts did not mind
issuing an auction sale notice on 25.02.2023 itself which was
the first date fixed for hearing in the confiscation matter. The
date of sale was fixed on 01.03.2023 which was even before the
second date fixed for hearing. All the kind of formalities were
being done is apparent on the face of it.
34. In terms of Rule 14 of the Rules any auction of
vehicle could have been held only after the order of confiscation
would attain finality. Such finality would come only after
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
revisional order. In these cases of auction sale, in fact, no
opportunity was made available to the vehicle owner(s) to file an
appeal. They were deprived of their statutory right of appeal and
revision.
35. In order to achieve the set goals, the Excise
Superintendent wrote a letter to the then MVI, Muzaffarpur on
22.02.2023 calling upon him to submit a valuation report in
respect of 527 vehicles. We have gathered from the records that
these 527 vehicles were lying in 22 police stations of the district of
Muzaffarpur. By no stretch of imagination it could have been
possible for the then MVI, Muzaffarpur to submit a valuation
report in respect of all the vehicles within two days but he did that
which was not possible by way of a reasonable approach. We have
described how the value of the vehicles were fixed. Few examples
we have given in our previous day order. We called upon the MVI,
Muzaffarpur who is present in court to show that what is the basis
of fixing the minimum value of the Scorpio vehicle of the
petitioner at Rs. 3,80,000/- when the insured value of the vehicle
was Rs. 12,12,517/-. It is not one of those cases in which any bid
was earlier invited. It is not the case of the respondents that in
respect of this vehicle or other vehicles no bid was coming despite
three attempts taken as per Rule to invite bids. This is also not
stated that the valuer had provided any distress sale value of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
vehicle in his report. It is not a case of scrap auction as envisaged
in Departmental Memo No. 5964 dated 04.08.2022.
36. The MVI, Muzaffarpur has clearly informed this
Court that he does not find any basis of valuation and cannot say
that how the then MVI, Muzaffarpur could have done the
valuation on his own within two days in respect of all 527
vehicles. There is no photographs of the vehicles. In these
materials this Court can reach to only one and one conclusion that
the valuation report submitted by the then MVI, Muzaffarpur was
only a paper work which he prepared sitting in his office.
37. The arbitrariness in fixing the value of the vehicle
and extraneous considerations behind the same causing huge loss
to the public exchequer cannot be ruled out. Here is the case of the
petitioner who is alleging underhand-dealing in the matter of
auction sale of the vehicles. Several connecting circumstances
have been noticed by this court right from the stage of confiscation
of the vehicle till issuance of notice of the auction sale. The
auction sale notice under which the vehicle of the petitioner has
been sold was not even published in a newspaper as required by
law. One particular person is purchasing 10-12 vehicles in the
auction sale. How does he come to know about the auction sale
and what is his connections which make it possible for him to
succeed in auction every time are some matters which would
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
require answer for instilling public confidence and public
accountability in these kind of transactions.
38. We have recently noticed in C.W.J.C. No. 4697 of
2025 that how auction sale of vehicles has been conducted in the
district of Gopalganj. The matter is under investigation with the
Economic Offence Unit (EOU), Bihar, Patna vide E.O.U. P.S. Case
No. 42 of 2025. In the kind of materials present on the record in
the present case we find that it is a fit case in which the E.O.U.
must register a First Information Report and investigate into the
matter of the fixation of the valuation of the vehicles and auction
sale in the matter it has been done in the present case. The role of
authorities involved and the connections of the auction purchasers
are required to be verified and gone into. The manner in which
subsequent transfers have taken place and to whom such transfers
have taken place are also required to be noticed by the
investigating agency.
39. We therefore direct that the E.O.U., Bihar, Patna be
added as Respondent No. 10 in course of the day.
40. We are thankful to Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, learned Senior
Counsel for his giving so much time to the court in course of
hearing. This was required in order to appreciate the whole matter
and for that reason we had requested him to be present. Learned
Senior Counsel shall bring this order to the notice of the E.O.U.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
for purpose of registration of the FIR and taking up the
investigation.
41. We, however, hasten to add that the investigating
agency shall conduct investigation independently and no part of
the observations of this court at this stage for purpose of
appreciation of the matter shall influence the investigation.
42. As we have discussed the entire matter and found
that the order of confiscation and auction sale of the vehicle has
been done in complete violation of law and at this stage the
vehicle has already been auction sold and the auction sold vehicle
has been further transferred to a third party while setting aside the
order of confiscation and holding that the auction sale was bad in
law, in the changed circumstances we think it just and proper to
grant the alternative prayer of the petitioner.
43. We direct the respondent/State of Bihar through the
Principal Secretary, Excise Department (respondent no. 1) to pay a
sum of Rs. 12,12,517/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum with effect from three months after the date of seizure till
the date of payment. Such payment shall be made within a period
of one month from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of
this order. Three months from the date of seizure is the statutory
period for passing confiscation order, so we have allowed interest
from a later date.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
44. This Court further awards cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the
petitioner as cost of litigation which would also be paid within the
same period.
45. In the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar
Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad & Ors., reported in 2019 (1)
PLJR 1051, the learned writ court has taken a view that for any
misuse or excessive use of power by an executive of the State, if
the State is to be saddled with cost and compensation, the same
must be realized from the erring officials. This judgment was
under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cri)
No. 003566 of 2019, however the same was not interfered with.
We find that in this case since the State has to pay the entire
amount with interest and cost to the petitioner, the State must
recover the difference amount, i.e., Rs. 12,12,517 - Rs. 3,85,000 is
= 8,27,517/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Seventeen) together with interest and cost from the erring
officials in accordance with law within a period of six months
from the date of payment to the petitioner.
46. It is directed that the Department shall take
appropriate view in administrative side not only to take
appropriate action against the erring officials in accordance with
law, but would also instruct the officers dealing with the
confiscation and auction matters to strictly abide by the Rules of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13123 of 2025 dt.18-12-2025
2021 in a time frame.
47. We expect that the competent authority in the
E.O.U. shall constitute a Special Investigation Team to investigate
into the matter in a time bound manner. Finding that the
involvement in this case is huge, for the present this Court would
monitor (not supervise) the progress in the investigation. Tag this
with C.W.J.C. Nos. 4697 of 2025 and 12075 of 2025 and list it on
27.01.2026 under the heading "For Orders".
48. A copy of this order be handed over to Mr. V.N.P.
Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand,
Advocate.
49. Personal appearance of the officers stand dispensed
with.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/Krishna
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.12.2025
Transmission Date
