In Raju Kumar Yadav @ Raju Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through Secretary of the Excise Department, Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava delivered a 5-page long judgement dated May 12, 2026, wherein, it concluded that "a notice to show cause was required to be issued in the confiscation matter and only after hearing the petitioner or his authorised representative/counsel in the confiscation matter, an appropriate order would have been passed. This has not been done. In result, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned orders were set aside. The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad.
The judgement reads:"The matter is remitted to the Confiscating Authority to consider the application for release of the vehicle afresh keeping in view the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjeet Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others in CWJC No. 10126 of 2025. The Confiscating Authority shall first decide on the application for release within a period of one month from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 11. So far as the confiscation proceeding is concerned, it will be open to the Confiscating Authority to proceed with the confiscation matter separately by issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his response. A reasoned order in confiscation matter shall be passed by the Confiscating Authority after giving appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his authorised representative/counsel. 12. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."
The five other respondents were: 2. Excise Commissioner, Bihar, 3.District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabua. 4. Superintendent of Police, Kaimur Bhabua, 5. The Superintendent of Excise, Kaimur Bhabua and 6. Investigating Officer of Police Station Excise P.S.,Kaimur.
The petitioner was aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated July 24, 2025 passed by the Secretary (Prohibition and Excise), Bihar, Patna in Excise Revision Case of 2025 by which the Revisional Authority upheld the order passed by the Confiscating Authority and the Appellate Authority. The Revisional Authority rejected the revision application. The petitioner approached the High Court.
The petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question was a Tractor. On December 15, 2023, the vehicle was intercepted by a police party. The allegation was that the vehicle was engaged in transportation of 261 liters of country made liquor. The driver of the vehicle was arrested. On the basis of his self-statement, the S.I. of Police registered Mohania P.S. Case of 2023 dated December 15, 2023. It was the case of the petitioner that he was engaged in agricultural work. For the release of the vehicle, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur. It was submitted that such application was filed in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. A report was called for from the S.H.O. of the concerned police station. In his report, the S.H.O. opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle.The counsel submitted that even as the Confiscating Authority had not issued any notice proposing to confiscate the vehicle in question and no opportunity to show case was given in the confiscation matter to the petitioner, the Confiscating Authority while rejecting the request of the petitioner to release the vehicle in question on the ground of the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021, simultaneously passed an order of confiscation of the vehicle.
It was submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent State and its authorities, there is no averment that any notice to show cause was issued in confiscation matter. The counsel submitted that this being the position, the order of confiscation suffers from procedural infirmity and was liable to be set aside.
Justice Prasad observed: "....we are of the opinion that the order of confiscation suffers from violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as it appears that in the confiscation matter, no notice to show cause
was issued to the petitioner. It was the petitioner who had approached the Confiscating Authority under Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as amended up to date) for release of the vehicle which was refused citing sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 (as amended up to date). At this stage, the Confiscating
Authority became functus officio insofar as the application was concerned but the Confiscating Authority did not stop there, he continued with the order and considered the matter of confiscation."
No comments:
Post a Comment