Ram Janam Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Ram Janam Singh, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated January 13, 2024, passed by the Senior Deputy Collector-cum-Presiding Officer, Aurangabad (Excise Court No. 2). This order, in connection with Excise Confiscation Case No. 402 of 2023, directed the release of the petitioner's Mahindra Bolero vehicle (Registration No. JH03AK2973) subject to payment of Rs. 5,11,580, which was 50% of the insured value. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested the release of the vehicle upon payment of only 10% of the insured value, as per the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022. The petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in its current form because the petitioner had failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner had not provided any grounds to justify bypassing this appellate mechanism, such as demonstrating a violation of statutory rules or an issue with the competence of the authority initiating the confiscation proceedings. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal, taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act and a recent Supreme Court decision regarding limitation issues. The appellate authority was also directed to pass a speaking order on merits within three months, and the vehicle was not to be auctioned until the appeal was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated any violation of statutory rules or that the confiscation proceedings were not initiated by the competent authority, warranting entertainment of the writ petition? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought the release of his vehicle upon payment of 10% of the insured value under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2022, and challenged the order demanding 50% of the insured value. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents did not file a counter-affidavit or present arguments on the merits of the case. The judgment notes that the petitioner had rushed to the court without exhausting the remedy of appeal.