Aman Kumar Agrawal vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)

Date : 18-08-2026

Heard the parties.

The present writ application has been filed for quashing the confiscation / penalty order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the District Revenue Officer - cum - Confiscating Authority, Muzaffarpur in Confiscation Case No. 142 / 2024-25 whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed for release of the Mahindra Scorpio vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. UP16DV-6875, engine no. YDP4E78675 and chasis no. MA1TJ4YD6P6F92232. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP16DV-6875 and the vehicle in question was given on rent through digital platform namely, Zoom Car App. Pursuant to valid booking made through the said platform, one Sikender (Guest) booked the vehicle vide Booking ID No. 23391641 and vehicle lease agreement dated 23.09.2024 was executed between the petitioner (Host) and the said Guest bearing Confirmation Id- JPSNJVW4S. At the time of handing over the vehicle the Guest- Sikender informed the petitioner that the vehicle would be driven by one Mohit, who possessed a valid driving licence. Accordingly, the petitioner verified and obtained copies of the driving licence and Aadhaar card of the driver- Mohit before handing over the vehicle. Subsequently, the vehicle was seized by the police authorities in connection with alleged recovery of 497.16 liters of liquor leading to registration of Kanti P.S. Case No. 524 of 2024 dated 25.09.2024 under Section 317(4), 317(5), 324(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the bona fide owner of the vehicle in question, having vehicle registration certificate issued in his favour annexed at Annexure- P/2 to the writ application. The vehicle was handed over after due verification and was activated through authorized OTP generated on the Zoom Car application thereby ensuring that delivery and usage of the vehicle was carried out strictly through digital platform in a lawful and transparent manner. That after initial booking period the Guest extended the booking through the application and continued to retain possession of the vehicle. As per the terms of the said agreement the vehicle was handed over to the Guest and possession and control of the vehicle stood transferred to the Guest while the petitioner retained only ownership rights. The F.I.R. does not disclose any role, knowledge or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Excise Act”) and he without availing the remedy has directly filed the present writ application. The liability arising out of use of vehicle for commission of offence under the Excise Act cannot be avoided by the owner merely by asserting that the vehicle had been given on rent and that the owner had no knowledge of its misuse. The impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after due consideration of the relevant facts and statutory provisions and does not suffer from any illegality.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order including the materials available on record. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that petitioner was not made accused by name but in the accused column the petitioner was made accused as the owner of the vehicle. It is true that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle but from perusal of Annexure – P/1 it appears that petitioner had entered into an agreement on 23.09.2024 and as per the terms and conditions for hiring the car action contrary to law was forbidden.

Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules (for short “The Rules”) mandates that the amount of penalty shall be decided by the Collector or the Officer authorized by him but while imposing penalty the Officer shall have due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle’s owner and the latest insured value of the vehicle. It further stipulates that in no case penalty should be less than 10% of the latest insured value of the vehicle and more than Rs. 5,00,000/- .

The respondent authority while deciding the release of the vehicle on the basis of application filed by the petitioner under Rule 12(A) of the Rules has not taken into consideration the statutory provision of Rule 12A(2) including involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence under the Excise Act. The order passed by the confiscating authority does not discuss anything regarding involvement of the petitioner and reason behind imposing Rs. 5,00,000/- as penalty upon the petitioner. The order is cryptic without application of mind and has been passed without consideration of material facts in a mechanical manner.

Considering the aforesaid discussions and the fact that vehicle was intercepted during the period it was given on rent, there is no direct and indirect involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence under the Excise Act and the respondent Confiscating Officer / Authorized Officer has failed to consider the statutory provision in this regard, we have no option but to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 is hereby set aside. The respondent no. 3 / District Revenue Officer -cum- Confiscating Authority, Muzaffarpur is directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on payment of 10% of the latest insured value of the vehicle within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed.