Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court, in a judgment dated 17 December 2019, ruled on a writ petition seeking the release of a sealed house and quashing of a confiscation order issued under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The case originated when the petitioner’s house was raided in connection with an FIR under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47 of the Prohibition Act, alleging recovery of 6 litres of illicit country-made liquor. Following this, confiscation proceedings were initiated and concluded with an order from the Collector, Jamui, directing the confiscation of the property.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking two primary reliefs: (i) unsealing of the house, and (ii) quashing of the confiscation order dated 26.04.2019. The writ was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court.

However, the High Court noted that the Prohibition Act itself provides an alternative statutory remedy: Section 92(2) allows an appeal to be filed before the Excise Commissioner against any confiscation order passed by a Collector. The court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is normally not exercised when an equally effective alternative remedy exists, unless the case involves (a) violation of fundamental rights, (b) breach of natural justice, (c) complete lack of jurisdiction, or (d) constitutional challenge to the law itself.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the Patna High Court emphasized that the petitioner had not been denied natural justice, nor had she challenged the vires of the Act or shown that the Collector lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

Importantly, the High Court provided relief by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Excise Commissioner within four weeks, despite the lapse of the regular limitation period. The appellate authority was directed to condone the delay, keeping in view the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. Further, the Court ordered that the vehicle (if not yet auctioned) shall not be sold until the appeal is decided.

This ruling reflects the judiciary’s consistent approach in encouraging the use of statutory remedies before resorting to constitutional writ jurisdiction.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment serves as a vital precedent on the limits of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when alternative remedies exist. It underscores the principle that High Courts should refrain from exercising writ powers if a statutory appeal route is available, barring exceptional circumstances.

For the public, especially those facing proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, the ruling reinforces the need to first approach the Excise Commissioner before seeking High Court intervention. For government authorities, it validates the Collector’s authority to issue confiscation orders under the Act.

The decision also sets a fair precedent by recognizing that time spent pursuing a writ can be a valid ground for delay condonation in subsequent appeals.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 when an alternative statutory appeal is available?
  • Court’s Decision: No, unless specific exceptional grounds are met.
  • Reasoning: The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 provides an appellate mechanism under Section 92(2). The High Court cited the Whirlpool Corporation case and held that alternative remedies must be exhausted first unless the case involves fundamental rights, natural justice violation, or jurisdictional errors.
• Was the confiscation order passed by the Collector without jurisdiction?
  • Court’s Decision: No.
  • Reasoning: The Collector acted under Section 58(2) of the Prohibition Act, and there was no indication of jurisdictional overreach.
• Is the petitioner entitled to file an appeal after the limitation period?
  • Court’s Direction: Yes.
  • Reasoning: Given the writ was pending in the High Court, the Excise Commissioner was directed to consider the delay application sympathetically.
• Can the auction of seized property proceed during the pendency of appeal?
  • Court’s Direction: No.
  • Reasoning: The Court restrained auction until disposal of the appeal, ensuring fair opportunity to the petitioner.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1

Case Title

Popali Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17645 of 2019

Citation(s)

2020 (3) PLJR 83

Coram and Names of Judges

• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
• For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Prasad (GP-7)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTc2NDUjMjAxOSMxI04=-4zjgcAxHCHY=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.