Disposed¶24

Mangal Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jun 2026CWJC/5834/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC No.5834 of 2026 (decided 24-06-2026); petitioner Mangal Paswan v. State of Bihar and excise authorities; writ for release of vehicle not entertained because statutory remedy under Rule 12A, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 not availed; 30 days to apply before Collector/authorised officer, decision within further 30 days; release on payment of penalty per Rules' guidelines; writ application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; petitioner given liberty to apply for statutory remedy (release of vehicle under Rule 12A) within 30 days before the Collector or authorised officer, who must decide within a further 30 days and consider release on payment of penalty per the Rules. ¶24

Mangal Paswan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ application for release of the vehicle should be entertained directly, given that the petitioner had not sought the statutory remedy under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 for release of the vehicle.

¶19

Court's answer

Since the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, the Court refrained from entertaining the writ application, leaving the petitioner free to pursue that statutory remedy for release of the vehicle.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner files the application for release of the vehicle within 30 days before the Competent authority (the Collector or an officer authorised by him), it shall be considered and disposed of within a further period of 30 days from the date of filing.

¶21

Key takeaways

The competent authority shall consider releasing the vehicle on payment of penalty as per the guidelines provided under the Rules.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5834 of 2026, oral order dated 24-06-2026 (per Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.; bench comprising also Kumar Manish, J.). Mangal Paswan petitioned for release of a vehicle against the State of Bihar (Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department), the Commissioner of Excise, the Excise Superintendent, Patna, and the SHO, Gardanibagh Police Station. The Court found that the petitioner had not moved the competent authority under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended) for release of the vehicle, and therefore refrained from entertaining the writ application on merits. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for the statutory remedy within 30 days before the Collector or an officer authorised by him, whose decision was to follow within a further 30 days, considering release of the vehicle on payment of penalty as per the guidelines under the Rules. The writ application stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5834 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Mangal Paswan Son of Rang Lal Paswan, Resident of Village- Sakariacha, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna, Bihar- 804455.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Commissioner, Excise, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Excise Superintendent, Patna, District- Patna.

¶9

The Station House Officer, Gardanibagh Police Station, District- Patna.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 25

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH ORAL ORDER

¶17

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

¶18

2 24-06-2026

¶19

It appears from perusal of the writ application that the petitioner has not moved before the competent authority under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (As Amended Up-to-date) for release of vehicle in question.

¶20

This being the position, we refrain from

¶21

entertaining this writ application. Petitioner is at liberty to apply for statutory remedy for release of the vehicle in question. If any such application is filed within a period of 30 days from today before the Competent authority i.e. the Collector or an officer authorized by him, the same shall be considered and disposed of

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.5834 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/2

¶23

within a further period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application. The competent authority shall consider releasing the vehicle in question on payment of penalty as per the guidelines provided under the Rules.

¶24

The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶26

( Kumar Manish, J)

¶27

Ranjeet/-arvind

¶28

Mangal Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Paswan 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

Vishal Raj Vs The State of Bihar

Laxmi Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Chandra Yadav @ Suresh Chandra Vs The State of Bihar