Confiscation order passed without notice violates principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable.

The petitioner’s tractor (Registration No. BR45GB-1553) was intercepted on December 15, 2023, allegedly transporting 261 liters of country-made liquor, leading to the registration of Mohania P.S. Case No. 868 of 2023

The petitioner applied for the release of the vehicle under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021

The Confiscating Authority rejected the release application pursuant to Rule 12A(3) and simultaneously passed an order of confiscation without issuing a show-cause notice or providing a hearing to the petitioner

This order was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority in Excise Revision Case No. 20/2025

1. Whether the Confiscating Authority can pass an order of confiscation without issuing a prior show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the owner

2. Whether the rejection of a release application under Rule 12A automatically empowers the authority to conclude confiscation proceedings simultaneously

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), and the procedural requirements under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended).

The court relied on the precedent set in Manjeet Kumar Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 10126 of 2025), which governs the guidelines for the release of vehicles

The core legal rule is that a statutory authority becomes functus officio regarding a specific application once it is decided and must initiate a separate, distinct proceeding with proper notice for confiscation

The Court observed that the Confiscating Authority committed a procedural error by merging the request for release with the final act of confiscation

While Rule 12A(3) might justify the refusal to release a vehicle at an interlocutory stage, it does not dispense with the requirement of a formal confiscation proceeding

The Court reasoned that because no notice to show cause was issued specifically for the confiscation, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to defend his property rights, rendering the orders of the original, appellate, and revisional authorities legally unsustainable due to a gross violation of natural justice

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Revisional, Appellate, and Confiscating authorities and remitted the matter to the Confiscating Authority with directions to: (i) decide the release application afresh within one month based on the Manjeet Kumar Yadav precedent, and (ii) conduct a separate confiscation proceeding only after issuing a proper notice and providing a reasoned hearing to the petitioner