January, 2020, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019, titled as Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors., and the order dated 14th of January, 2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17165 of 2019, titled as Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors., the State has not initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. It is a matter of record that this legislation has generated huge litigation. The docket of the Court, be it the trial court or the High Court, is now choked solely on account of such legislation. In the High Court itself, on an average, 400 bail applications are being filed every day, some of which are pertaining to the said Statute. Position in the lower courts is worse. Before the trial courts, i.e. the Sessions Courts, more than 1,75,000 challans stand filed in relation to the said Statute. Before this Court, on an average, more than 5000 writ petitions are being filed annually for release of vehicles/properties seized under the said Act. It has been the continued practice of this Court, since the year 2017, that in the writ petitions the vehicles, unless the situation so warrants, are normally being released subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. This, perhaps, is done only to protect the property from being destroyed, for there is no mechanism under the Statute or with the administration for protecting the property seized in relation to the crime registered under the said Statute. Property is left to the vagaries of weather, resulting into national loss. This we say for the reason that proceedings for confiscation, as envisaged under Section 58, were never initiated by the authority, which under the Act is the District Magistrate/Collector. It is only as a result of inaction on the part of such authorities that the owners of the vehicles/properties are constrained to approach this Court for its release. When the matter in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019 (Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) and in 17165 of 2019(Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar& Ors.) (supra) was taken up for hearing, the State vehemently opposed the release of the vehicle and, as such, the following orders were passed:
