Allowed

Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 May 2023CWJC/2103/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna allowed a writ petition where the Collector insisted on a Rs. 25 lakh deposit for property release under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The Court held the order unsustainable as the Collector ignored Rule 12B(2) factors like economic status and quantum of contraband.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.12.2022 was quashed and the matter remanded to the Collector to afresh determine the penalty considering Rule 12B(2).

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2103 of 2023

¶2

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

¶3

Sunita Devi W/o Late Ajay Kumar, R/o Mohalla- New Ara Patel Gali, P.S.-

¶4

Dehri On Sone, District- Rohtas (Sasaram)

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Excise New Secretariat,

¶8

Patna, Bihar.

¶9

The Commissioner, Excise New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.

¶10

The Collector Cum District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram.

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, Sasaram.

¶12

The Officer-in-Charge, Dehri, P.S.- Rohtas, Sasaram.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad (GP7)

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD)

¶19

Date : 02-05-2023

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶21

In exercise of powers under Section 57(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act ( for brevity, the Act) read with Rule 12B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 ( for brevity, the Rules), the respondent-Collector under

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.2103 of 2023 dt.02-05-2023 2/4

¶23

the impugned order dated 13.12.2022, passed in Excise Case No. 13 of 2022, (Annexure-9) has insisted on deposit of an amount of Rs. 25,00,00/- (Twenty Five Lacs) for release of the house (property) from where there is alleged recovery of 64.125 litres of IMFL.

¶24

The confiscation proceedings have already attained finality up till the stage of revision. The petitioner, thereafter, filed CWJC No. 6299 of 2022 (Annexure-3). The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to avail remedy in terms of Rule 12B of the Rules read with Section 57B of the Act. Sub rule (2) of Rule 12B dealing with release of premises on payment of penalty reads as follows:-

¶25

“12B. Release of Premises on Payment of Penalty:-

¶26

(1)…. …. ….

¶27

(2) The Collector or the officer authorized by him shall have due regard to the economic status of the individual, nature of his involvement in the crime, location of the premises and the quantum of intoxicant recovered while deciding the quantum of fine to be paid by the individual. However, the fine shall not be less than Rs. one Lakh in any case.”

¶28

The impugned order dated 13.12.2022 shows no

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.2103 of 2023 dt.02-05-2023 3/4

¶30

consideration of the factors enumerated in Rule 12B(2) such as economic status of the individual, nature of his involvement in the crime, location of the premises and quantum of intoxicant recovered while deciding the quantum of fine to be paid by the individual. The insistence of the District Collector, therefore, requiring deposit of Rs 25,00,00/(Twenty Five Lacs) to secure release, is legally unsustainable as the factors relevant to such consideration have been overlooked by the Collector while determining the amount of penalty.

¶31

The order dated 13.12.2022, passed by the Collectorcum District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram (Respondent No.3) in Excise Case No. 13 of 2022, as contain in Annexure-9, is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Respondent No.3 for consideration afresh with reference to the relevant parameters specified in Rule 12B(2). The petitioner should present herself before the Respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks. Upon receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Respondent No.3 shall proceed to carry out the determination of penalty, as per the statutory provision after affording opportunity to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.2103 of 2023 dt.02-05-2023 4/4

¶33

With this observations/directions the writ application is

¶34

allowed.

¶35

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

¶36

( Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶37

shyambihari/-

¶38

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 08-05-2023 Transmission Date

Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Patel Engineering Limited Vs The State of Bihar

Bhavani Automobiles Vs The State of Bihar

Sheo Shankar Trading Company Vs Bihar State Goods and Services Tax

M/s Rangoli Hardware Mach Marts Jamui Vs The Union of India

M/s Shambhu Traders Vs The State of Bihar