Disposed¶26

Sonu Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Mar 2024CWJC/4099/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; demand before competent authority; statutory duty; premature writ petition; release of seized vehicle; Scorpio BR 29 PA 6484; Manjhagarh police station case no. 426 of 2023; section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act 2018; Rule 12 A Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021; amended sub-Rule (2) Rule 12 A (2022, 2023); two weeks to decide excise release application; Gopalganj; Patna High Court CWJC 4099 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus issued and no immediate release of the vehicle; petition disposed of as premature. Court stated the disposal would not prevent the petitioner from applying under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, and directed the authority to decide such an application within two weeks of receipt. ¶26

Sonu Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus directing release of the petitioner's seized vehicle can issue where no demand has been made before the competent authority (i.e., whether the petition is premature).

¶26

Court's answer

Issuance of a writ of mandamus requires (1) a prior demand before the competent authority and (2) statutory duty vested in the public authority; the demand ingredient is not forthcoming in this lis, therefore the writ petition stands disposed of as premature.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Disposal of the writ petition is no hurdle to the petitioner approaching the competent authority under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (with amended sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 A of 2022 and 2023); on submission of an application in the prescribed format, the authority is directed to decide the petitioner's case within two weeks of receipt.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

PATNA HIGH COURT — CWJC No. 4099 of 2024, decided 18-03-2024 (oral judgment per P. B. Bajanthri J.; coram: P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey JJ.). Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for release of his Scorpio (registration no. BR 29 PA 6484) seized in connection with Manjhagarh police station case no. 426 of 2023 under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act 2018. Held: a writ of mandamus presupposes (i) a prior demand before the competent authority and (ii) statutory duty vested in the public authority; the demand ingredient being absent, the petition stood disposed of as premature. The court clarified that such disposal would be no hurdle to the petitioner approaching the competent authority under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, read with the amended sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 A (2022 and 2023 amendments), and directed that any application submitted in the prescribed format be decided within two weeks of receipt.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4099 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Sonu Pandey son of Kanhaiya Pandey Resident of village - Safapur, Police Station - Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Prohibition and Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna.

The Collector/District Magistrate, Gopalganj District Gopalganj.

¶11

The Excise Superintendent, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj.

¶13

The Officer-in-Charge of Manjhagarh Police Station, Police Sation- Manjhagarh, District - Gopalganj.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, SC 13 Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, AC to SC 13

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) Date : 18-03-2024

¶21

In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶22

following relief/reliefs:

¶23

“(i) An appropriate writ in Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Scorpio bearing registration no. BR 29 PA 6484 Chassis no. MA1TA2WR2K2D40144 Engine no. WRK4D17234, which is seized and registered the case bearing Manjhagarh police station case no. 426 of 2023 under section 30 (a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act 2018.

¶24

(ii) Any other writ / writs, order / orders or direction / directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may require and deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court may also be issued.”

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.4099 of 2024 dt.18-03-2024 2/2

¶26

2. For issuance of writ of mandamus there must be demand before the competent authority followed by statutory duty vested in the public authority. Ingredient No. 1 relating to demand before the competent authority is not forthcoming in the present lis . Accordingly, present writ petition stands disposed of as premature.

¶27

3. Disposal of the present writ petition would not be a hurdle for the petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 12 A of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule (2) of Rule 12 A in the year 2022 and 2023. If such application is submitted in the prescribed format, the concerned authority is hereby directed to proceed to decide the petitioner’s case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application under Rule 12 A.

¶28

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶29

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶30

GAURAV S./-

¶31

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	20.03.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Sonu Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Vinay Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority through its Managing Director, Vs M/S Sree Masala Udyog Industrial Area, Purnea

Rampravesh Ray Vs The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Patna ,Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Rabindra Kumar Sinha Vs The Union of India

Baby Devi Vs The State of Bihar