Pintu Kumar Jaiswal vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 18-08-2026

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that the petitioner is the registered owner of Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. UP57AT0208, Chassis No. MA1ZN2GHKH1A10295 and Engine No. GHG1MS9060. The vehicle was seized in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2017, dated 26.08.2017, registered under Sections 420, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged that the vehicle was intercepted while it was being driven towards Uttar Pradesh and forty bags containing packets of "Energy Dense Emilease Rich Energy Food" and "Energy Dense Wining Food" were recovered from it. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by the driver and other persons.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and has no knowledge of the articles loaded in it, as it is a carriage vehicle operated through a driver. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier approached the SDJM, Gopalganj seeking for release of the vehicle. However, the prayer was rejected by order dated 04.09.2018 on the ground for want of jurisdiction.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no confiscation proceeding has yet been initiated before the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. It is also submitted that the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Executive Authority to confiscate such a vehicle is pending consideration before a Larger Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2015, (Baleshwar Roy Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors).

The Learned counsel lastly submits that the vehicle has remained at the police station since its seizure and is continuously loosing its value. He submits that the petitioner is ready to comply with any condition that may be imposed by this Court, for release of the vehicle. It is also submitted that an earlier Cr.W.J.C. No. 2886 of 2018 filed by the petitioner for release of the vehicle was disposed of on 30.04.2019 with liberty to the petitioner to file a civil Writ application.

Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the S.P.,Gopalganj as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present Writ petition is premature, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent authority in the confiscation proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has not approached the competent authority and has directly invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court.

The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, pursuant to the Writ petition, a report was called for from the SHO, Kateya, who, vide Memo No. 3640/2024 dated 26.06.2024, reported the present status of the seized vehicle. It is submitted that Kateya P.S. Case No. 246 of 2017 was registered on the Written report of A.S.I. Lankesh Kumar Panda for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The articles covered under the Essential Commodities Act were recovered from the vehicle in question for which, the vehicle was seized in accordance with law.

The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that, after completing investigation, charge-sheet No. 268 of 2017 dated 28.10.2017 was submitted against Monu Kumar Gupta and Bhola Gond. Subsequently, the case was also found true against the petitioner, Pintu Kumar Jaishwal, and charge-sheet No. 218 of 2018 dated 31.07.2018 was submitted against him. It is further submitted that a proposal for confiscation of the seized vehicle has already been sent to the competent authority.

On these grounds, the Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner should approach the competent authority and has to avail the remedy available under the Essential Commodities Act and prayed to discuss the Writ petition as it is premature.

Having considered the submissions advanced by the Learned counsel for bothe the parties and the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the competent authority in the confiscation proceeding under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has not yet availed the said remedy.

In view of the availability of such alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to examine the merits of the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle at this stage. Accordingly, the present Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in accordance with law and raise his pleas for the release of the seized vehicle.

If the petitioner approaches the competent authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claim of the petitioner.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

In result, the Writ petition is disposed of with the above said observation.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.