Where the owner is uninvolved, the seized vehicle must be released upon payment of the minimum 10% penalty.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Maruti XL6 vehicle bearing registration no. JH01EJ1220, which he had given to M/s Drigo India Cars Pvt. Ltd. under a rental agreement dated 4 November 2023 for six months.

The rental company subsequently hired the vehicle to Deepak Kumar for the period from 1 March 2024 to 9 March 2024. On 4 March 2024, the vehicle was intercepted by the police and 501.12 litres of liquor were recovered from it; Deepak Kumar was arrested in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

Although the petitioner was shown as an accused in his capacity as the vehicle’s owner, the police submitted a final form on 31 December 2024, finding no material implicating him in the offence.

During confiscation proceedings, the Senior Deputy Collector-cum-Presiding Officer directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the vehicle’s latest insured value, amounting to ₹2,63,407, for its release through order dated 22 April 2026 in Excise Confiscation Case No. 16 of 2026.

Whether the confiscating authority was justified in directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the vehicle’s latest insured value without considering his non-involvement in the offence and the vehicle’s possession by the hirer at the relevant time?

Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on payment of the statutory minimum penalty under Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules?

Whether the petitioner’s writ petition was maintainable despite the State’s contention that an appellate remedy under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 was available?

The Court applied Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, under which the vehicle was seized in connection with the alleged transportation of liquor.

It considered Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which provides an appellate remedy against confiscation-related orders.

The Court primarily relied on Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, which requires the Collector or authorised officer, while determining the penalty for release of a seized vehicle, to consider the quantity of intoxicant recovered, the involvement of the vehicle’s owner, and the latest insured value of the vehicle; the penalty cannot be less than 10% of the insured value or exceed ₹5,00,000.

The underlying principle applied was that a confiscation or release order must reflect consideration of relevant statutory factors and must not be cryptic, mechanical, or unsupported by reasons.

The Court found that the petitioner had entered into a rental arrangement with the rental company and that the vehicle had thereafter been hired to Deepak Kumar for the precise period during which it was intercepted.

The hiring documents, including the consent form and identity documents submitted by Deepak Kumar, established that the vehicle was in the hirer’s possession and control when the liquor was recovered.

The police investigation had also found no involvement of the petitioner and had exonerated him in the final form.

Although Rule 12A(2) required consideration of the owner’s involvement, the confiscating authority neither discussed that factor nor explained why 50% of the insured value was imposed; it merely prepared a chart and passed the order mechanically.

The order was therefore held to be cryptic, non-speaking, and contrary to the statutory requirements.

The Court consequently interfered with the order notwithstanding the State’s objection regarding the alternative remedy.

The impugned order was set aside.

The Senior Deputy Collector-cum-Presiding Officer was directed to release the Maruti XL6 vehicle to the petitioner upon payment of 10% of its latest insured value, within two weeks of receiving or being furnished a copy of the judgment.

The writ application was accordingly disposed of.