Allowed

Niraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Sept 2020CWJC/7718/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Supreme Court of India held that the Division Bench of Patna High Court in earlier judgments had rightly held that possession of Mahua flowers exceeding 5 kg without a license constitutes a statutory violation but does not justify confiscation of the vehicle or penal action without specific provision in the Rules. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Release of the seized Swift Desire car in favour of the registered owner and destruction of the seized 350 kg. Mahua flowers.

Niraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7718 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Niraj Kumar Son of Shambhu Yadav Resident of Village- Baraliya Block, P.S.- Tankuppa, District- Gaya.

¶4

Mithilesh Kumar Ojha Son of R.B. Ojha Resident of Village- 20A Abdul Hamid Street, Near Great Eastern Hotel, P.S.- District- Kolkata.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate Gaya.

¶9

The Superintendent of Excise Gaya.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police Gaya.

¶11

The S.H.O. Police Gaya.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Anand For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar, SC 11 ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR) (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.)

¶16

Date : 17-09-2020

¶17

Heard the parties.

¶18

Petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

¶19

“For quashing the seizure as well as pray for release of Swift Desire car bearing registration No.WB04F-4096 in favour of petitioner in Fatehpur P.S. Case No.95/2020 registered u/s 30(a), (d)/32(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Excise, Gaya.

¶20

Informant is a police officer who in his written complaint

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.7718 of 2020 dt.17-09-2020 2/4

¶22

has alleged that on 19.5.2020 while he was on patrolling duty along with other police personnel, he received an information from officer-in-charge that one Maruti Suzuki car was coming from Jharkhand in which Mahua flower is kept and he saw a white coloured Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire car coming from Jharkhand and on seeing police, the driver fled away leaving the car and on search of car, Mahua flowers kept in 7 jute bags each containing 50 kg. was recovered and same was seized and FIR was instituted against the owner and driver of the seized car giving rise to Fatehpur P.S. Case No.95/2020 registered u/s 30(a), (d)/32(2) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶23

Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 23163 of 2018 (Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Mahto versus The State of Bihar and Ors. and other analogues matters) has held as follows:-

¶24

“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

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.7718 of 2020 dt.17-09-2020

¶26

3/4

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

In view of Division Bench judgment as referred above, the seized car is not liable for confiscation and if any confiscation proceeding has been initiated against the seized vehicle, same is directed to be dropped and the District Magistrate / Confiscating Officer, Gaya is directed to release the vehicle in favour of registered owner of the vehicle after due identification of ownership of the vehicle and on production of ownership and registration document with respect to vehicle in question in his name. However, 350 kg. seized Mahua flower cannot be released and same to be destroyed as per prescribed

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.7718 of 2020 dt.17-09-2020 4/4

¶31

procedure.

¶32

The writ petition is allowed.

¶33

(Sanjay Karol, CJ)

¶34

( S. Kumar, J)

¶35

Sanjay/-

¶36

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	26.09.2020
Transmission Date	NA

Niraj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laljee Prasad, Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar, Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kumkum Devi Vs The State of Bihar