ORDER : Rajendra Menon, J. Challenging the action of the District Magistrate, Jamui, to confiscate a motorcycle bearing Registration No.53B 7198, which has been seized in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case No.79C2/18 for violation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), this writ petition has been filed. 2. Earlier also, when the same action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in CWJC No.5277 of 2018 and we, by an order passed on 22.03.2018, as has been done in a large number of cases, directed for release of the vehicle pending finalization of the confiscation case on the petitioner furnishing two surety bonds to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate and further undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by the authority concerned and not to alienate or deal with the vehicle in question or create a third party interest during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings. 3. When the petitioner approached the District Magistrate for release of the vehicle, the District Magistrate has passed a detailed order and has issued the following directions:- ^^vkns’k 27-04-2018 ;g vf/kgj.k okn v/kh{kd mRikn] teqbZ ds i=kad 132@m0 fnukad 23-02-2018 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj e|fu”ks| vkSj mRikn vf/kfu;e] 2016 ds rgr tCr eksVj lkbZdy jft0 u0 ch0vkj0 53ch0 7198 dk vf/kgj.k djus gsrq vkjEHk fd;k x;k gS A foi{kh jkts’k dqekj iafMr mQZ jkts’k iafMr is0&peVw iafMr lk0&vktkn uxj] okMZ ua0& 18 Fkkuk & teqbZ ftyk & teqbZ LFkk;h irk lk0& c#vV~Vk Fkkuk & teqbZ ftyk & teqbZ }kjk C.W.J.C No. – 5277/2018 Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandint Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds U;k;kns’k fnukad 22-03-2018 ds vkyksd esa tCr okgu eksVj lkbZdy jft0 ua0 & ch0vkj0 53ch0 7198 dks eqDr djus gsrq ÁkFkZuk fd;k x;k A foi{kh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk ,oa C.W.J.C No. – 5277/2018 Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandint Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds U;k;kns’k fnukad 22-03-2018 dk voyksdu fd;k A C.W.J.C No. – 5277/2018 Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandint Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. The State of Bihar & Ors. esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds U;k;kns’k fnukad 22-03-2018 dk voyksdu fd;k A C.W.J.C No. – 5277/2018 Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandint Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds U;k;kns’k fnukad 22-03-2018 ds vuqikyu esa voj fujh{kd mRikn] pfy”.kq ny] teqbZ ds okn la& 79C2/2018 esa tCr okgu eksVj lkbZfdy jft0 ua0& ch0vkj0 53ch0 7198 dks ewy Registration Certificate, Insurance vkfn okgu dk dkxtkr fn[kkus ij fuEukafdr ‘krkasZ ij eqDr djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS % & 1- okgu ekfyd dks vius okgu dh eqfDr ds fy, eks0&42]000-00 ¼c;kyhl gtkj½ #i;s dk Personal Bond cSad xkjUVh ds #i esa ,oa eks0&42]000-00 ¼c;kyhl gtkj½ #i;s dk nks Surety rFkk bl vk’k; dk ‘kiFk&i= vf/k{kd mRikn] teqbZ ds le{k lefiZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk fd vko’;drk iM+us ij okgu ekfyd vius okgu dks U;k;ky; ds vkns’kkuqlkj fufnZ”V LFkku ,oa le; ij miLFkkfir djsaxas A 2- okgu ekfyd vius okgu dk QksVksxzkQ ftlesa okgu dk Registration Number ,oa Chassis Number Li”V fn[k jgk gks dh QksVksxzkQ v/kh{kd mRikn] teqbZ dh mifLFkfr esa djsaxsa rFkk mldh Áfr v/kh{kd mRikn] teqbZ ,oa bl U;k;ky; dks miyC/k djk;saxas A 3- okgu ekfyd ds Personal Bond ,oa Bond of Surety ij okgu ekfyd ,oa igpkudrkZ dk QksVksxzkQ] iw.kZ irk] eksckbZy uEcj] vk/kkj dkMZ uEcj] iSu dkMZ LovfHkÁekf.kr Áfr ds lkFk rFkk Bond of Surety ij igpkudrkZ dk Hkh QksVksxzkQ layXu gksxk rFkk igpkudrkZ dk Hkh iwjk irk lk{; ds lkFk layXu gksxk A 4- okgu ekfyd dks ;g ‘kiFk&i= nsuk vfuok;Z gksxk fd os okgu dk Ownership Transfer ugha djsaxas vkSj u bls fdlh dks Lease ij nsaxas vkSj Third Party Interest dks Alienate ;k Create djsaxas vkSj u bldh cukoV esa fdlh rjg dk ifjorZu u rks Lo;a djsaxas vkSj u fdlh nwljs dks djus dh vuqefr nsaxas] rkfd bldh igpku cjdjkj jgs A 5- okgu ekfyd okgu dk Á;ksx djus dh vuqefr vlkekftd xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, ugha nsaxas A 6- Confiscation dk vkns’k ikfjr djrs le; okgu ekfyd vius okgu dks U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vuq#i Confiscation ds fy, miLFkkfir djsaxas A 7- vxj Confiscation Case dh lquokbZ esa xSj gkftj gksaxas rks Surety tCr dj yh tk;sxh A v/kh{kd mRikn] teqbZ dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd okgu ekfyd ds }kjk mijksDr fcUnqokj dkxtkr lefiZr djus ij gh okgu dks eqDr djsaxas rFkk vuqikyu Áfrosnu bl U;k;ky; esa lefiZr djsaxas A vkns’k dh Áfr v/kh{kd mRikn] teqbZ dks Hksatsa A vfHkys[k fnukad 01-06-2018 dks miLFkkfir djsa A ** 4. The District Magistrate took note of the order passed by us in the writ petition, as is detailed hereinabove, and directed for verifying the documents of the vehicle. This was a reasonable approach of the District Magistrate and we approve the same. 5. Thereafter, the District Magistrate has directed that personal bond of Rs. 42,000/- along with bank guarantee and two sureties and an affidavit be furnished by the petitioner. When we had directed for release of the vehicle on furnishing of two sureties, insistence upon by the Collector or the District Magistrate to submit a personal bond and a bank guarantee of Rs. 42,000/- is an act of circumventing and disobeying the directions issued by us in the writ petition. We do not approve the aforesaid act of the District Magistrate. 6. That apart, the District Magistrate has also directed for submission of photograph of the registration number, chassis number of the vehicle and various other issues, may be in an anxiety to get security on behalf of the State, he has done so. For the present, we are not commenting upon the same, but at the same time, we may take note of the fact that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with a co-passenger was driving the vehicle in a drunken condition. Driving a vehicle in a drunken condition may be an offence under the Act. However, to initiate a confiscation proceeding or power of confiscation is available to the District Magistrate or the statutory authority only under Section 56 of the Act and Section 56 of the Act for the sake of brevity reads as under: "56. Things liable for confiscation.- Whenever an offence has been committed, which is punishable under this Act, following things shall be liable to confiscation, namely - (a) any intoxicant, liquor, material, still, utensil, implement, apparatus in respect of or by means of which such offence has been committed; (b) any intoxicant or liquor unlawfully imported, transported, manufactured, sold or brought along with or in addition to, any intoxicant, liable to confiscation under clause (a); (c) any receptacle, package, or covering in which anything liable to confiscation under clause (a) or clause (b), is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacle, package or covering; (d) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carrying the same. (e) any premises or part thereof that may have been used for storing or manufacturing any liquor or intoxicant or for committing any other offence under this Act. Explanation : The word "premises" include the immoveable structure, all moveable items within the structure and the land on which the premises is situated." 7. If we analyze the aforesaid provision, we find that whenever an offence has been committed under the Act and which is punishable, the things and items mentioned from sub-clause (a) to (e) are liable to be confiscated. Sub-clause (a) deals with intoxicant, liquor, material, still, untensil, implement, apparatus and other means which are used for committing of the offence. Clause (b) speaks about unlawful import, transportation, manufacturing and bringing, selling of intoxicant or liquor within the territory of the State in question. Clause (c) speaks about any receptacle, package or covering and any other item used for packaging or covering of the material. Clause (d) speaks about the animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used for carrying the intoxicant, liquor and clause (e) deals with the premises or part thereof that may have been used for storing or manufacturing any liquor or intoxicant. 8. If the provision of Section 56 of the Act, which is the only provision for confiscation under the Act, is analyzed, we find that only because a person is driving a vehicle or is found in a drunken condition, there is no provision for confiscation of the vehicle and proceeding against such an individual under Section 56 of the Act. We find that more than hundreds of cases have come to our notice where merely because the driver was found in a drunken condition, the vehicle has been seized, the confiscation has been held and in some cases even confiscation orders have been passed. Prima facie, in our considered opinion, all confiscation proceedings initiated and all confiscation done in the State of Bihar with regard to persons, who have only committed an offence of moving in a drunken condition, is an illegal act on the part of the State Government and the officers of the State Government. Prima facie, in our considered opinion, all confiscation proceedings initiated and all confiscation done in the State of Bihar with regard to persons, who have only committed an offence of moving in a drunken condition, is an illegal act on the part of the State Government and the officers of the State Government. They are acting beyond the provisions of law and the citizens, who are found to have been committed an offence of driving a vehicle or moving in a drunken condition, are being harassed by confiscation of the vehicle and compelled to approach this Court challenging the confiscation. 9. We, therefore, issue notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and the Collector of the District concerned, i.e. Jamui to show cause as to why the entire confiscation proceedings in this case and all other cases of identical nature should not be quashed and compensation granted to the person concerned who has to take recourse to the remedy available of approaching this Court either for release of the vehicle or for challenging the confiscation proceedings. We direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, and the District Magistrate of the case in question to answer and to this show cause the aforesaid on or before 30th July, 2018. 10. List on 31st July, 2018. On the said date, we will pass a detailed order including the orders for grant of compensation for the damage, loss or harassment caused to the person in case we are satisfied that the provisions of Section 56 of the Act will not apply in cases where the only allegation is that the person concerned was found in a drunken condition.