Vishal Raj Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abbas Haider, SC 6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

¶15

4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SC-6 for the State.

¶16

The petitioner in the present writ application is seeking the following relief(s):-

¶17

“(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 while pickup bolero bearing registration number BR 33GA 0165 Chassis No.- MA1-ZN2GH-KF1H62465

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 2/4

¶19

Engine no. GHE1H44511.- in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 551/2022 u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act , 2016 of the Bihar.

¶20

And/or

¶21

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

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on

¶23

22.06.2026, this Court had passed the following orders:-

¶24

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he had purchased the vehicle in an auction sale vide Annexure ‘P/2’. According to him, the name of the purchaser/petitioner was not transferred in the certificate of registration by the District Transport Office (in short ‘DTO’), Jamui as a result whereof when the vehicle was stolen away and then it was seized while carrying illicit liquors, in the subsequent proceedings, the notice was wrongly sent to the erstwhile registered owner. His clear case is that he had not been served.

¶25

2. On perusal of Annexure ‘P/2’, it appears that the name of the petitioner could have been incorporated in the certificate of registration only when he would have submitted Form 32 with the

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 3/4

¶27

requisite fee, identity letter and residential certificate. 3. In the writ application, there is no averment that the petitioner had applied for transfer of the ownership of the said vehicle.

¶28

4. On much insistence by learned counsel for the petitioner, we pass over the matter for the day to enable the petitioner to produce the proof of submission of Form 32 with requisite fees and documents in the office of the DTO, Jamui. 5. Learned counsel for the State is present.

¶29

6. List this matter on 23.06.2026.”

¶30

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not submitted Form 32 with requisite fee

¶31

and documents in the office of District Transport Officer, Jamui for transfer of his name.

¶32

In such circumstance, we are unable to proceed with the matter in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The certificate of ownership is not in the name of the petitioner. However, it appears that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle in auction sale.

¶33

Keeping in view the fact that petitioner had purchased the vehicle in auction sale, we grant liberty to the

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.4227 of 2026(4) dt.24-06-2026 4/4

¶35

petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation on the grounds whatsoever would be available to the petitioner in accordance with law. He may also pray for release of the vehicle in question on payment of penalty in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.

¶36

If an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from today before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall consider the same keeping in view the entire materials which may be brought to his notice.

¶37

All questions are left open to the parties.

¶38

The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶40

( Kumar Manish, J)

¶41

Ranjeet/-arvind

¶42

U

Vishal Raj v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Raj 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

Prem Kumar Paswan @ Ranjan Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Rubina Khatun Vs The State of Bihar, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Deptt. of Home, Govt. of Bihar

M/S Samadhan Seva Samiti Vs The Union of India

Mangal Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Laxmi Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Chandra Yadav @ Suresh Chandra Vs The State of Bihar