Shantanu Kumar Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the confiscating authority imposing penalties for release of a seized vehicle. The authority had directed payment of a penalty equal to 50% of the insured value of the vehicle, amounting to ₹3,45,776, and an additional ₹10,373 described as penalty towards security and maintenance of the vehicle. The petitioner contended that the penalties were excessive considering the quantity of liquor recovered, stated to be 23.250 litres, and further argued that the authority lacked power to impose any penalty under the head of security and maintenance. It was pointed out that Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 had been amended in 2023, substituting the earlier fixed penalty regime with a discretionary framework requiring consideration of factors such as quantity of intoxicant, involvement of the vehicle owner, and insured value of the vehicle, subject to prescribed limits. According to the petitioner, the confiscating authority ignored the amended rule and acted under the earlier provision. The State counsel was unable to identify any rule authorising levy of penalty for security and maintenance of seized vehicles. The High Court found merit in the petitioner’s submissions and held that no provision in the Rules permits imposition of such a penalty. It observed that the authority had wrongly assumed such power and could not enrich the State exchequer by imposing penalties not sanctioned by law. Consequently, the Court set aside the confiscation order as well as the appellate and revisional orders. The matter was remitted to the confiscating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law within one month, with a direction that the vehicle should not be auctioned in the meantime.
