Allowed

Ajay Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Jul 2019CWJC/9648/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing confiscation proceedings against the petitioner for possession of Mahua flowers exceeding 5 kg under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The Court directed the release of the seized motorcycle.

What did the court decide?

Confiscation proceedings quashed; vehicle directed to be released to petitioner on production of ownership papers.

Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9648 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ajay Kumar Tiwari S/o Gaya Tiwari @ Ganga Tiwari Vill.- Mastipur Piparpati Bodhgaya, P.s.- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Excise, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶6

The District Magistrate Gaya

¶7

The Superintendent of Police Gaya

¶8

The Officer In-Charge of Bodhgaya Police Station Distt.- Gaya

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.(Ga1)

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN)

¶14

Date : 23-07-2019

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶16

The petitioner prays for provisional release of the Motorcycle bearing registration No. BR2K3530 which has been seized in connection with Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 372 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner informs that it is for alleged recovery of 25 Kg of Mahua flower that has given rise to Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 372 of 2017 for alleged violation of the provisions of section 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (for short ‘the Act’)

¶18

The issue as to whether a seizure of Mahua flower can be a subject matter of confiscation proceeding under the Act came

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.9648 of 2019 dt.23-07-2019 2/3

¶20

up for consideration in a batch of cases arising out of C.W.J.C.

¶21

No. 23163 of 2018 (Umesh Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) and analogous cases and this Court after discussing the legal position, has held as follows :

¶22

“For the discussions above, we find the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for alleged recovery of Mahua flowers exceeding 5 Kg. which lies at the foundation for such penal action under ‘the Act’ and the ‘Mahua Flowers Rules’, absolutely without jurisdiction because we neither find such enabling powers in the respondents to initiate any action under ‘the Bihar Mahua Flowers Rules’ nor ‘the Act’ enables the respondents to initiate action on mere possession of Mahua Flowers, until, it is converted either into plain or spiced spirit as clearly defined under Section 2(16) of ‘the Act’.

¶23

Since ‘the Mahua Flowers Rules’ allows any person to remain in possession of Mahua Flowers to the extent of 5 kg. without any licence and any quantity in excess thereof, is to be done under a licence, the quantity possessed by the respective petitioners in excess of 5 kg., without a licence, may be a statutory violation and thus capable of retention by the State Government but in absence of any penal action so provided under ‘the Rules’ or ‘the Act for possession of these flowers exceeding the limit, even if the State Government would be within its jurisdiction to retain the same, the confiscation proceedings cannot be allowed to continue.

¶24

In result, we hold that the confiscation proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioners for alleged violation of Section 3 of ‘the Mahua Flowers Rules’ read alongside the provisions of ‘the Act’ for possession of Mahua Flowers exceeding 5 kgs., is without sanction of law and consequentially the confiscation proceeding, if any, initiated against the petitioners shall stand quashed and the vehicles seized, if not already released,

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9648 of 2019 dt.23-07-2019 3/3

¶26

shall be released in favour of the owner on production of ownership papers.”

¶27

In view of the legal position so settled, we accordingly, quash the confiscation proceeding, if any, initiated against the petitioner arising from Bodhgaya P.S. Case No. 372 of 2017 for alleged possession of 25 Kg of Mahua flower and consequently direct the District Magistrate, Gaya to forthwith release the vehicle of the petitioner on production of ownership papers.

¶28

Writ petition is allowed.

¶29

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶30

( Partha Sarthy, J)

¶31

Prakash/ sushma

¶32

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date

Ajay Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Tiwari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teklal Nayak Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mohammad Ali Ebran Vs The State of Bihar

Sant Sagar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shanti Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Himanshu Kumar Verma @ Himanshu kumar Vs The State of Bihar