The Patna High Court upheld the maintainability objection raised by the State that the writ petition was premature as it was filed upon issuance of notice. The petitioner was allowed to raise all issues during the confiscation proceedings.
Petitioner allowed to raise all issues during confiscation proceedings; matter disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5232 of 2019
======================================================
Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sanjeev Jaiswal (Male) aged about 58 years S/o- Late Kedarnath Jaiswal Resident of Saharsa, Ward No.-18,near Palika Chowk, P.S and District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anil Kr. Sinha (GA1) ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN)
Date : 09-04-2019
Heard Mr. Upendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned AC to GA 1 appearing for the State.
Petitioner has questioned the notice dated 03.11.2018 issued by the Collector, Saharsa in purported exercise of powers vested in him as Confiscating Authority under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
It is submitted by Mr. Prasad that the house in question was abandoned and thus the recovery, if any, of liquor from the house is handy work of miscreants and not
Patna High Court CWJC No.5232 of 2019 dt.09-04-2019 2/2
the house owner.
Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the State raises a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition because it is at the stage of notice that the petitioner has approached this Court.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are persuaded to to uphold the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State, however petitioner is allowed raise all issues as raised in this writ petition during the course of confiscation proceeding which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits.
With the observations above, this writ petition is disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J)
( Arvind Srivastava, J)
mcv/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 16.04.2019 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the stage of notice issuance under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Jaiswal @ Sanjeev Jaiswal
The State of Bihar through The Collector, Saharsa
The Collector, Saharsa Bihar
The Superintendent of Police (Excise) Saharsa Bihar
The Thana Adhyakshya (S.H.O) Saharsa
Jyoti Saran
Arvind Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
