In The State of Bihar vs. DTDC Express Ltd. Courier Company (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed a 2-page long order dated April 2, 2026, wherein, it sets aside the 7-page long judgement dated July 2, 2025 by Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh. Supreme Court order reads: "1. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 had issued limited notice confined to imposition of costs. 2. We are informed that the confiscated material has already been released. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the prohibited as well as normal goods were being transported together, the circumstances under which the State has taken action does not require imposition of costs. 3. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order to the extent of imposition of costs of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside. 4. With these observations, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of."
In DTDC Express Ltd. (Courier Company) vs. The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, & Others (2025), the High Court had concluded:"It is a case for imposing cost, in view of the fact that petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed for about one year and he had filed multiple litigations before this Court and Criminal Jurisdictional Court. In this regard, we have taken note of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment, namely, UFLEX Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 165. Therefore, the respondents are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner towards litigations cost. The cost shall be paid by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar, DGP, State of Bihar and Commissioner of Excise Department, State of Bihar."
The other four respondents were: District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Buxar, Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Buxar, Excise Superintendent, Buxar, and SHO, Buxar Excise Police Station, Buxar.
The petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs: (A) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the goods seized in connection with Buxar Excise P.S. Case No. 240 / 24 dated June 29, 2024. The goods prayed to be released were mentioned in the list to the writ petition. The goods were not prohibited. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated December 6, 2024 and December 27, 2024 passed by the SDM Buxar P.S. Case No. 240 2024 whereby and whereunder the SDM (respondent no.4) declined to release the good items which are not forbidden/prohibited under the law. Also the two orders by the SDM Buxar Sadar was unreasonable and did not address the main issue.
The petitioner – DTDC Express Ltd. who is in courier business had booked the truck-container bearing no. HR55A-H-7501 for the purpose of transportation of goods from Gurugram to Patna. During the transit, the vehicle was seized at New Ganga Bridge, Excise Checkpost, Buxar Industrial Area, Distt. Buxar on June 29, 2024. The driver of the truck was not only carrying the goods of the petitioner, he was carrying 360 litres of liquor. Thus, the Excise / Police officials proceeded to initiate action against the driver of the truck while seizing the subject matter of the vehicle along with the goods. For the release of goods other than liquor, the petitioner who is owner of the goods, had filed criminal petition before the jurisdictional court on July 3, 2024 and it was rejected on July 29, 2024. He had approached the Authorities on September 7, 2024 for release of the goods. It was not materialized resultantly, he had invoked remedy before the High Court in filing CWJC No. 15630 of 2024 and it was disposed of on October 8, 2024 while directing the official-respondents to consider the petitioner’s grievance within a period of three weeks. Thereafter, the Authorities rejected on two occasions namely, December 6, 2024 and December 27, 2024, which are the subject matter of the present litigation. Simultaneously, petitioner had filed one more criminal petition before the jurisdictional court and it was rejected on January 6, 2025. Therefore, the writ petition was filed.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was only an agent and who was into courier business, he had booked the subject matter of truck container for the purpose of transporting goods other than the excise material. The container/truck should have been seized along with the liquor only, for the reasons that perusal of the FIR, offences for the seizure of the container/truck was only to the extent that possession of the vehicle had violated offences under the Excise Act. The seizure memo was not in respect to excise material. Therefore, in all fairness, the seizure authority should not have seized. Assuming that it was seized, which should have been released in favour of the concerned person after due verification of the records. It was also submitted that unnecessarily petitioner was harassed. He was compelled to invoke number of remedies before the criminal jurisdictional court and before the High Court. Overall on four occasions, he invoked the remedy before court of law. Therefore, seizure ofcwas without authority of law. In particular, those items do not fall under the offence of the Excise Act.
Undisputed fact was that on June 29, 2024, vehicle no. HR55A-H-7501 was seized along with the 360 litres of liquor and goods narrated in the Seizure Memo. It was also not disputed that the petitioner had invoked criminal jurisdictional court on two occasions and before the High Court, this was the second round litigation. Despite these multiple limitations, the petitioner was not extended the relief for which he is entitled to. In other words, seizure of the goods was not part and parcel of excise material so as to invoke offences under the Excise Act. It was to be noted that the concerned authority was not registered any offences under the Sales Tax etc. for illegally transporting under any specific provision of law. At the best, the seizing authority should have sought for certain documents relating to ownership of items and released the same within a reasonable period of time from the date of seizure, the same was not done. Thus, the petitioner was harassed unnecessarily for more than one year. Hence, the petitioner made out a case so as to grant relief. Accordingly, the impugned decision of the respondent dated December 6, 2024 and December 27, 2024 were set aside. Justices Bajanthri who authored the judgement of the High Court had observed: "9. The concerned authority is hereby directed to release the goods within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order after due verification of the fact that petitioner is connected with the seized goods at item no. 1 to 33. 10. The petitioner shall cooperate in producing necessary material to connect the goods, which are narrated in Annexure-1." This judgement has been set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment