AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.11 for the State.
The petitioner is the proprietor of a transport carrier and owner of the Tanker which was being used for transportation of 20,000 litres of denatured
anhydrous ethanol under valid permit from Harinagar Sugar Mill Limited, Distillery Division in the district of West Champran to the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, Sipara in the district of Patna. It is because the driver of the said tanker was found involved in acts which were allegedly
contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 that the tanker was seized and an excise case was registered against the
accused persons. In so far as the transportation of ethanol is concerned, there is no dispute as regarding its lawful transportation from the Distillery
Division of M/s Harinagar Sugar Mill to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Sipara in the district of Patna.
According to Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.11, the default was on the part of the driver of the tanker in so far as the issue of
ethanol is concerned.
We have been informed that a resolution has been taken by the State Government in its Excise department to permit the distilleries manufacturing
molasses as well as grain based ethanol to the extent of 100% of their manufacturing capacity and which has been circulated vide Memo No.2373
dated 03.07.2019 and thus the consignment is well supported.
It is bearing note of the nature of consignment as well as the documents accompanying it that this Court vide order dated 10.05.2019 directed for
interim release of the tanker together with the denatured anhydrous ethanol on furnishing indemnity bond for satisfying any liability that may be arising
on adjudication of the matter. We are informed that the tanker together with the goods has since been released.
In view of the facts noted above and bearing note of the opposition coming from Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.11 as regarding the
culpability and since an excise case is already registered and pending for adjudication, we would not express our opinion on the merits of the charge
but would leave it open for the purpose to contest before the appropriate forum.
With the observation above and while confirming the interim order dated 10.05.2019, we allow this writ petition.