Writ Petition for release of seized vehicle is not maintainable when statutory alternative remedy of appeal against confiscation exists.

The petitioner, owner of Tata Truck No. BR-01GA-5647, sought a writ of mandamus for the release of his vehicle

The truck was seized on February 12, 2019, by Mokama Police after officials from the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFC) found a shortage of 4.35 quintals of wheat during transit from an FCI facility to a godown

Mokama P.S. Case No. 33/2019 was registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities (EC) Act and Section 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and the driver

The petitioner argued he was not present during the interception and cannot be held vicariously liable

During proceedings, it was revealed that the District Magistrate, Patna, had already passed a final confiscation order regarding the vehicle on September 23, 2019

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to release a seized vehicle when a final confiscation order has already been passed under the Essential Commodities Act.

2. Whether the petitioner must exhaust statutory alternative remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, specifically regarding the statutory mechanism for the confiscation of property and the provision for a statutory alternative remedy of appeal against such orders before a designated Appellate Authority

It further followed the judicial principle that writ jurisdiction should generally not be invoked when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy remains unexhausted by the aggrieved party

The Court observed that the petitioner approached the High Court directly for the release of the vehicle despite the Fact that the District Magistrate, Patna, had already concluded statutory confiscation proceedings and passed a final order on September 23, 2019

The Court reasoned that since the EC Act explicitly provides a specialized appellate forum to challenge such confiscation orders, the petitioner’s writ petition was premature as he had failed to exhaust the "efficacious alternative statutory remedy available under the law"

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the vicarious liability claim, instead relegating the matter to the appropriate statutory and criminal forums

It directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority against the confiscation order dated September 23, 2019, within one month. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear the case on its merits.

the petitioner was granted liberty to move the competent Criminal Court for the interim or final release of the truck, to be considered independently of the High Court’s observations