Bihar Excise Rules | 'Public Interest' Under Rule 12A(3) Not Rigid; Quantity Of Liquor Alone Can't Bar Release Of Seized Vehicle: Patna HC
The Patna High Court recently held that 'public interest' under Rule 12A(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 cannot be given a rigid meaning and must be construed in light of the statutory scheme. The Court clarified that the quantity of liquor alone cannot justify refusal to release a confiscated vehicle, and that the competent authority must consider several relevant...
The Patna High Court recently held that 'public interest' under Rule 12A(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 cannot be given a rigid meaning and must be construed in light of the statutory scheme. The Court clarified that the quantity of liquor alone cannot justify refusal to release a confiscated vehicle, and that the competent authority must consider several relevant factors before denying such release.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Commissioner (Excise), Bihar, who had refused to interfere with a confiscation order passed against the petitioner's Scorpio vehicle.
Under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, any vehicle, vessel, animal, or other conveyance seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, may be ordered to be released. However, Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12A creates an exception, allowing the Collector or an authorized officer to proceed with confiscation and disposal of the seized vehicle if they are satisfied, based on a report by the police or excise officer, that its release would not be in the public interest.
In the present case, the Collector, Gopalganj, invoked his powers under Rule 12A(3) and refused to release the vehicle, citing public interest. The petitioner contended that the Collector failed to demonstrate how public interest would be served by the confiscation in this instance.
The Patna High Court explained the purpose and necessity behind the insertion of Rule 12A through the 2022 amendment, and held:
“8. In past, it was noticed that huge number of vehicles, which were seized in connection with the Prohibition Laws were lying outside the police station occupying the road areas and those were being damaged due to the delay in disposal of confiscation cases and auction sale which were intermittently facing legal actions and the hindrances. In order to come out of such a situation, Rule 12A has been inserted…”
The Court noted that in the impugned order, the Sub-Divisional Officer had referred to Memo No. 4025/Excise dated 7 November 2023, issued by the Collector, Gopalganj. The memo directed that if a two-wheeler is found carrying more than five liters of liquor, or a four-wheeler more than ten liters, such vehicles shall not be released merely on payment of a penalty, as such release would hinder the effective implementation of the prohibition laws.
The High Court interpreted the expression 'public interest' and held that the refusal to release a confiscated vehicle cannot be based solely on the quantity of liquor seized, but must depend on a range of factors. The Court observed:
“11…To us, it appears that the legislatures in their wisdom have inserted Rule 12A with a conscious decision to allow release of the vehicles on payment of penalty. One of the factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the quantum of penalty is the quantum of liquors loaded on the vehicle, therefore, only on the ground of quantity of liquor, the competent authority cannot reject an application for release of the vehicle… In our considered opinion, it is to be decided by the competent authority in appropriate cases keeping in view several factors such as whether the vehicle has been caught in commission of offence repeatedly or that the owner of the vehicle could not be verified, there may be a case where the liquors are found spurious and the owner of the vehicle may be found involved in multiple cases of like nature under the liquor laws or any other consideration of like nature. In such cases, the competent authority may form an opinion taking note of the 'public interest'.”
The High Court specifically observed that if the competent authority rejects an application for release of a vehicle solely based on the quantity of liquor seized, it would obstruct the proper implementation of Rule 12A and defeat the purpose of the law. The Court clarified that the expression 'public interest' under sub-rule (3) of Rule 12A must be understood in the context of the statute's scheme and derive its sense from the purpose and framework of the law.
The High Court eventually set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj, for fresh consideration in accordance with the scheme of Rule 12A of the 2021 Rules. The authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within one month.
Cause Title: Manjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar and Others
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10126 of 2025
Appearance: Mr. Masoom Raza appeared for the Petitioner and Mr. Ravi Ranjan appeared for the Respondents.