Akhilesh Kumar Shahi Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

Akhilesh Kumar Shahi Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was disposed of as premature. The petitioner was directed instead to invoke the Rule 12A remedy (application in prescribed form, drawing a speaking order within two weeks) or, if confiscation proceedings have attained finality, to appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's writ petition seeking release of his seized vehicle is maintainable, given that no demand has been made before the competent authority under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (with amended sub-rule 2, 2022 and 2023).

Court's answer

In the absence of any demand before the competent authority (in particular under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 with amended sub-rule 2 of Rule 12 A, 2022 and 2023), the writ petition filed for a direction under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus is not maintainable and is premature.

Ratio / Principle

Disposal of the writ petition as premature is no bar (would not be a hurdle) to the petitioner invoking the remedy under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, including the amended provisions of 2022 and 2023.

Key takeaways

If an application is submitted in the prescribed form before the competent authority under Rule 12A, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.obiter¶¶29
If the confiscation proceedings over the subject vehicle have attained finality, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 before the appropriate authority, and any such appeal is to be considered at the earliest.obiter¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14921 of 2024, oral order dated 04-10-2024 (Per: P. B. Bajanthri, J.; countersigned by Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh, J.) — Akhilesh Kumar Shahi v. The State of Bihar (Excise and Prohibition Department) and others. The petitioner sought release of his Maruti Suzuki Wagonr (Regn. No. UP 52 BA 0769; Engine No. K10BN8251932; Chassis No. MA3JMT31SKE155876), seized by State officials under Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 128/2024 u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 dated 09.06.2024. Held: as there was no demand before the competent authority, in particular under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule 2 of Rule 12 A (2022 and 2023), the writ petition filed for a direction under Article 226 for a writ of mandamus was not maintainable and stood disposed of as premature. Disposal would not be a hurdle to invoking the Rule 12A remedy (including 2022 and 2023 amendments); an application in the prescribed form will draw a speaking order from the competent authority within two weeks of receipt. If confiscation proceedings over the vehicle have attained finality, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 before the appropriate authority, to be considered at the earliest.