Disposed¶23

Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Apr 2025CWJC/4713/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC 4713 of 2025 Patna High Court 24-04-2025 vehicle seizure release writ premature not maintainable mandamus Rule 12A Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules 2021 amended Sub-Rule 2 2022 2023 Section 30(a) Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act 2018 Gopalganj Nagar P.S. Case 46/2025 Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle BR28AB-5859 competent authority speaking order two weeks appeal confiscation finality excise prohibition Bihar

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was disposed of as premature. The petitioner was left at liberty to invoke the Rule 12A remedy (competent authority to pass a speaking order within two weeks of receiving a prescribed-form application) and to appeal if the confiscation has attained finality. ¶23

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking release of the petitioner's seized Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle is maintainable, given that no demand has been made before the competent authority under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (including the 2022 and 2023 amendments).

¶23

Court's answer

In the absence of any demand before the competent authority under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (read with the amended Sub-Rule 2 of 2022 and 2023), the writ petition for a writ of mandamus seeking release of the seized vehicle is not maintainable and is premature; accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as premature.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Disposal of the petition is no bar 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; if an application is submitted in the prescribed form before the competent authority, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶27

Key takeaways

If the confiscation of the vehicle has attained finality, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (oral judgment per P. B. Bajanthri, J; S. B. Pd. Singh, J concurring), dated 24-04-2025, in CWJC No. 4713 of 2025 (Priyanka Kumari v. State of Bihar and others). The petitioner sought a mandamus directing release of her Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle (Regn. No. BR28AB-5859) seized by State officials under Gopalganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 46/2025, u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018, dated 17.01.2025. Holding: since no demand had been made before the competent authority under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (read with amended Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12A of 2022 and 2023), the writ petition was not maintainable and stood disposed of as premature. Disposal is no hurdle to invoking the Rule 12A remedy; on a prescribed-form application the competent authority must pass a speaking order within two weeks of receipt; if the confiscation has attained finality, the petitioner may appeal to the appropriate authority. No precedents were cited; NAFR.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4713 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Priyanka Kumari, W/o Shree Daroga Thakur R/o- Rampurwa, P.O.Dumariya, P.S.- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶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, Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶10

The Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶11

The S.H.O., Gopalganj Police Station, Gopalganj, Bihar.

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Danish Quamar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Hussain Majeed, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶14

Date : 24-04-2025

¶15

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶16

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions directing the respondents to release the vehicle of the petitioner which is Hero Splendor Plus motorcycle having Registration No. BR28AB-5859, Engine No. HA11EYNHL71282, and Chassis No.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.4713 of 2025 dt.24-04-2025 2/3

¶18

MBLHAW126NHLB6932, which has been seized by the State officials under the Gopalganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 46/2025 u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018 dated 17.01.2025;

¶19

And/or

¶20

(ii) For any other order/orders, relief/reliefs

¶21

for which the petitioner may be entitled in the eyes of law.”

¶22

2. In support of aforementioned relief there is no demand before the competent authority in particularly under Rule of 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 read with amended Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 12A in the year 2022 and 2023.

¶23

3. In the absence of demand before the competent authority, the present writ petition for writ of mandamus is not maintainable or it is pre-mature. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of as pre-mature.

¶24

4. Disposal of the present petition would not be a hurdle for the petitioner to invoke remedy under Rule 12A of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 including amended provisions in the year 2022 and 2023. If such application is

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.4713 of 2025 dt.24-04-2025

¶26

3/3

¶27

submitted in the prescribed form before the competent authority, the competent authority shall pass speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶28

5. If the confiscation of the vehicle has attained finality, in that event, petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority.

¶29

6. With the above observation, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶31

( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶32

manish/-

¶33

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	26.04.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Priyanka Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kumari 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

Md. Israil Vs Union of India

Ajay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Sandeep Kumar Vs Smt. Janki Devi

Md. Rasool Vs The State of Bihar

Shital Vs The State of Bihar