Disposed¶26

Ankit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC22 Mar 2024CWJC/5211/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seizure release; writ of mandamus - demand before competent authority as precondition; writ petition disposed as premature; Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act Sections 30(a), 32(ii), 32(iii), 36, 41(1), 41(2); IPC Sections 272, 273; Rule 12 A Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (amended sub Rule (2)); Saraiya P.S. Case No. 35/2024; Muzaffarpur excise; Creta car DL12CN6282; Sunaina CWJC No. 7920 of 2023; Binit Kumar Son CWJC No. 4040 of 2023; two-week direction to decide representation/application.

What did the court decide?

For issuance of a writ of mandamus there must be a demand before the competent authority followed by statutory duty vested in the public authority. ¶26

Ankit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can issue for release of the petitioner's seized vehicle where no demand has been made before the competent authority. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

For issuance of a writ of mandamus there must be a demand before the competent authority followed by statutory duty vested in the public authority.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Since Ingredient No. 1 (demand before the competent authority) is not forthcoming in the present lis, the present writ petition stands disposed of as premature.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petitioner is not barred from approaching the concerned authority under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with the amended sub Rule (2); if such an application is submitted in the prescribed format, the concerned authority is directed to decide the petitioner's case within two weeks of receipt of the application under Rule 12 A.ratio¶29
The concerned authority is directed to take note of whether the petitioner's grievance could be redressed in the light of the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in Sunaina vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7920 of 2023) and Binit Kumar Son vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 4040 of 2023).ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ.; judgment per P. B. Bajanthri, J.), CWJC No. 5211 of 2024, decided 22-03-2024: Ankit Kumar sought a writ of mandamus for release of his Star Dust coloured Creta Car (Registration No. DL12CN6282) seized by State officials in Saraiya P.S. Case No. 35/2024 under Sections 272 and 273 IPC and Sections 30 (a), 32 (ii), 32(iii), 36, 41(1) and 41(2) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, and alternatively for disposal of his case in light of Sunaina (CWJC 7920 of 2023) and Binit Kumar Son (CWJC 4040 of 2023). Held: a writ of mandamus presupposes a demand before the competent authority followed by statutory duty vested in the authority; no such demand having been made, the writ petition stood disposed of as premature. The Court clarified that the disposal is no hurdle to the petitioner approaching the concerned authority under Rule 12 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended sub Rule (2); on receipt of an application in the prescribed format, the authority is to decide the case within two weeks, taking note whether the grievance can be redressed in the light of the said Co-ordinate Bench decisions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5211 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Ankit Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o Flat No- B-507, Sector 29 Rohini, 5th floor, Pehlad Pur Bangar, P.S.- Shahabad Dairy Dist.- North West Delhi110042.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶10

The Superintendent of Excise, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶11

The S.H.O., Saraiya Police Station, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader 07

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶18

Date : 22-03-2024

¶19

In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

¶20

“i. For issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner which is a Star Dust coloured Creta Car having Registration No. DL12CN6282, Engine No. G4FGJW476961 and Chassis No.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.5211 of 2024 dt.22-03-2024 2/3

¶22

MALC181CLJM418546 which has been seized by the State officials under Saraiya P.S. Case No. 35/2024 u/s 272, 273 of Indian Penal Code and 30 (a), 32 (ii), 32(iii), 36, 41(1) and 41(2) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act;

¶23

And/or

¶24

ii. For direction may be given for disposal of present case in light of the Hon’ble Patna High Court’s decision in Sunaina Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7920/2023) and Binit Kumar Son Vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 4040/2023) case.

¶25

iii. For any other order/orders, relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be entitled in the eyes of law.”

¶26

3. 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

4. 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

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.5211 of 2024 dt.22-03-2024 3/3

¶29

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.

¶30

5. The concerned authority is hereby directed to take note of whether petitioner’s grievance could be redressed in the light of Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Sunaina vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 7920 of 2023) and Binit Kumar Son vs. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 4040 of 2023) or not?

¶31

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶32

( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶33

GAURAV S./-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	29.03.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Ankit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Bhagat Vs The State Of Bihar

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Raj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar Through Mr. Tripurari Sharan, The Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest And

Umesh Prasad Yadav, Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The Employees State Insurance Corporation

Krishna Nand Jha Vs Mr. Pratya Amrit