Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ.—The undisputed facts of the present case portray a blatant highhandedness on the part of the respondents for the manner in which the petitioner's vehicle was auction sold, based on an order of confiscation passed under Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 ("the Act" in short), in brazen violation of the mandatory statutory prescription under Section 92 of the Act. 2. The petitioner is admittedly the registered owner of a WagonR car bearing Registration No. BR07AN-9031 with its Engine No. K10BN-8418515, Chassis No. MA3JMT31SLJ350953. On 25.01.2021, the said vehicle was intercepted by a police officer of Begusarai Muffasil Police Station in the night at 12:30. Allegedly, the said car was seen moving in high speed by the police, and upon chase the vehicle was intercepted. Seven persons, it is alleged, were found sitting in the said car, and upon further search an unsealed bottle of IMFL by the name of Imperial Blue of capacity 375 ml was seized. Out of 375 ml, some part of it, it is alleged, was consumed and 200 ml was found left in the bottle. The police also recovered a cigarette packet with the brand name ‘Charms’, five plastic glasses, two match boxes, one torn mixture packet and one gutkha packet. 3. With the allegation of recovery of 200 ml of IMFL, an FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 55 of 2021 was registered for commission of the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a), 37© and 41(a) of the Act. 4. In purported exercise of power under Section 56 of the Act, a confiscation proceeding was initiated giving rise to Excise Case No. 23 of 2021. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the confiscating authority and filed his reply to the show cause notice. 5. By an order dated 05.07.2021, the confiscating authority i.e. the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai passed an order of confiscation in respect of the petitioner’s vehicle in purported exercise of its power under Section 58 (2) of the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, informed the confiscating authority that he intended to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 92 of the Act, against the order of confiscation. The petitioner, thereafter, informed the confiscating authority that he intended to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 92 of the Act, against the order of confiscation. It is an admitted fact that the said communication of the petitioner sent through registered post was received by the office of the confiscating authority on 14.08.2021. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise Commissioner giving rise to Excise Appeal No 563 of 2021. In the meantime, however, the vehicle was auction sold on 26-08-2021, admittedly, just 12 days after the petitioner had intimated that he was going to prefer an appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it was incumbent upon the confiscating authority to decide first the preliminary issue as to whether the vehicle was liable for confiscation or not. He has submitted that even if the facts, which were alleged in the First Information Report, were taken to be correct, no prudent man could have reached a conclusion that the vehicle was being used for carrying such meagre quantity (200 ml) of illicit liquor. He has further submitted that, in no circumstance, the confiscating authority could have auction sold the vehicle, till such time the order of confiscation dated 05.07.2021 attained finality on the date of the order of the Excise Commissioner under Section 92 of the Act; and the resultant outcome of the appeal which the petitioner had preferred. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s intimation to the confiscating authority that he intended to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation was received in the office of the said authority on 14.08.2021. He has accordingly submitted that the entire exercise, right from the initiation of confiscation proceeding till the auction sale of the petitioner's vehicle, is patently illegal, unauthorised and liable to be held accordingly by this Court. 8. Mr. Kumar Manish, learned SC-5 appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the order of confiscation in the background of the fact that illicit liquor was proved to have been recovered from the possession of the persons who were arrested and were found sitting in the vehicle in question. He has submitted that the quantity of illicit liquor is immaterial for the purpose of initiation of confiscation proceeding under the Act. He has submitted that the quantity of illicit liquor is immaterial for the purpose of initiation of confiscation proceeding under the Act. According to him, as the vehicle was found carrying 200 ml of IMFL, the confiscating authority has rightly proceeded to confiscate the vehicle by its order dated 05.07.2021. He has further submitted that after the order of remand passed by the appellate authority, the confiscating authority passed the order dated 20.11.2021 affirming his own order which he had passed on 05.07.2021. 9. To address the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties as noted in the background of facts not in dispute, we consider it apt to refer to Rule 14 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, framed by the State Government under Section 95 of the Act, for carrying out the purposes of the Act, which reads thus:— "14. Disposal of seized/confiscated things.—The things seized/confiscated by the Collector may be disposed of by the order of Collector in the following manner:— (1) If the Collector, is satisfied that any seized article, is liable to speedy and natural decay or is of trifling value or can be put to misuse, he may, in exercise of power under Section 57 of the Act, order for destruction of the same at any time before passing the order of confiscation. (2) The confiscated Animal/ vehicle/ vessel/other conveyance/premises or part thereof shall be put to public auction and sold to the highest bidder within a period of one month from the date of attainment of finality of order of the confiscating authority or such extended period as deemed fit by the Collector or may be put for government use in the manner prescribed. Explanation.—the word “finality” connotes the date of order of Excise Commissioner passed under Section 92 of the Act. (underscored for emphasis) 10. The explanation clause appended to Rule 14 leaves no room for doubt that the expression 'finality', occurring in Rule 14 (2) connotes the date of order of Excise Commissioner passed under Section 92 of the Act. 11. The unambiguous language of Rule 14(2), prohibits auction sale of a vehicle one month after an order of confiscation attains finality. The explanation clause appended to Rule 14 leaves no room for doubt that the expression 'finality', occurring in Rule 14 (2) connotes the date of order of Excise Commissioner passed under Section 92 of the Act. 11. The unambiguous language of Rule 14(2), prohibits auction sale of a vehicle one month after an order of confiscation attains finality. In the instant case since the confiscation order has been passed by the Collector, the same could attain finality, upon passing of final order by the appellate authority i.e. the Excise Commissioner under Section 92 of the Act, which reads as under:— 92. Appeals.—(1) All final orders passed by any Excise Officer other than the Excise Commissioner or Collector under this Act, shall be appealable to the Collector within sixty days from the date of the order. (2) All final orders passed by the Collector and Excise Commissioner shall be appealable to the Excise Commissioner and the State Government respectively within ninety days from the date of the order complained of. Provided that no second appeal shall lie against an order passed by the Excise Commissioner on appeal. (3) The State Government may make rules in this behalf." 12. In the instant case, the appellate authority (Excise Commissioner) by his order dated 13.09.2021 had set aside the order dated 05.07.2021 confiscating the petitioner's vehicle. It is apparent from the order of the appellate authority that the order of the confiscating authority was found to be non-speaking, and accordingly the matter was remanded to the confiscating authority for passing an order afresh. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2021 that there was no other option left but to confiscate the vehicle in view of the recovery of 200 ml of IMFL from the possession of seven persons who were found siting in a WagonR car. 13. This Court has duly considered the facts as emerging from the averments made in the writ application and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, as also the statutory provisions. This Court finds that disposal of the confiscated vehicle under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules could only have been done within a period of one month from the date of attainment of finality of order of the confiscating authority dated 05.07.2021. This Court finds that disposal of the confiscated vehicle under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules could only have been done within a period of one month from the date of attainment of finality of order of the confiscating authority dated 05.07.2021. The finality in the instant case as per explanation to Rule 14 of the Rules would be within one month from 13.09.2021, being the date of order of the Excise Commissioner as an appellate authority under Section 92 of the Act, since in the instant case, the confiscating authority is a Deputy Collector Land Reforms/Collector within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act which reads as follows:— “2. Definitions.—… … … (15) “Collector” means Collector-cum-District Magistrate of a district and includes the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate or Deputy Collector or any person appointed by the Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate under the Act; 14. However, the confiscating authority, in the meantime, and prior to the order attaining finality, has proceeded to auction sale the vehicle in question on 26.08.2021, that also just 12 days after the petitioner had, admittedly, intimated to the confiscating authority, his intention to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation. 15. The action of the confiscating authority in proceeding to dispose of the confiscated vehicle in question without the order attaining finality in terms of the statutory provision, as considered above, is clearly illegal and unsustainable. The action is in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Rules and its explanation as contained in the Rules. The auction sale is, therefore, patently unsustainable, being wholly arbitrary and done in utter haste. 16. The conclusion based on the aforesaid facts also discloses violation of a time- honoured principle of law that where a Statute provides for something to be done in a particular manner it can be done in that manner alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. (see para 40 of the Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr. Reported in (2011)15 SCC 1 ). 17. (see para 40 of the Chief Information Commissioner & Anr. Vs. State of Manipur & Anr. Reported in (2011)15 SCC 1 ). 17. As if this was not enough, this Court would find that when the Excise Commissioner, by its order dated 13.09.2021, had remanded the matter to the confiscating authority after setting aside the order of confiscation dated 05.07.2021, for writing an order afresh, the confiscating authority has not written any fresh order. On the contrary, on 20.11.2021, he has mechanically and without any consideration whatsoever proceeded to affirm the same earlier order dated 05.07.2021, which order had already been held by the appellate authority to be a non-speaking order. Clearly, this could not have been done. The confiscating authority’s reaffirmation of the very same order dated 05.07.2021, which the appellate authority had set aside on 13.09.2021, has rendered passing of the order by the appellate authority, and the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 92 of the Act to be a meaningless exercise in futility. 18. This Court would further find that the confiscating authority had already auction sold the petitioner’s vehicle, before the appellate authority had remanded the matter back to him. The confiscating authority therefore did not retain any discretion to pass any order in bona fide exercise of his jurisdiction, upon remand. The confiscating authority, upon remand, therefore, passed the impugned order in pretentious exercise of power to meet the desired result of sustaining his earlier order dated 20.11.2021. Such exercise of power by the confiscatory authority was to say the least not in good faith and to attain ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of its power and jurisdiction as a confiscating authority. Such exercise of power, to say the least, is a brazen colourable exercise of power by an administrative authority. In support of such conclusion, this Court would rely upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others reported in State of Tamil Nadu VS K. Shyam Sunder, 2011(8) SCC 737 . On this account also, the impugned confiscation order dated 20.11.2021 and the consequent auction sale of petitioner’s vehicle, is unsustainable in the eye of law.(see para 36 of 2011(8) SCC 737 ). 19. On this account also, the impugned confiscation order dated 20.11.2021 and the consequent auction sale of petitioner’s vehicle, is unsustainable in the eye of law.(see para 36 of 2011(8) SCC 737 ). 19. This Court would also take notice of the undue haste with which the vehicle was auction sold by the confiscating authority without waiting for the decision of the appellate authority, knowing it well that the petitioner was intending to prefer an appeal against the order of confiscation. The undue haste manifests lack of bona fide, in exercise of jurisdiction by the confiscating authority. 20. In view of the consideration above, we have no hesitation in quashing the order dated 26.08.2021 directing for auction sale of the vehicle in question, as also the confiscation order dated 20.11.2021. 21. The above conclusion of the Court brings us to the issue of relief being granted to the petitioner. At this juncture, it has been argued on behalf of the State that after auction sale of the vehicle, third party rights have been created and, therefore, the person, to whom the vehicle has been sold, ought to be impleaded as party respondent in the present writ application. We outrightly reject the said submission. The vehicle has been auction sold by the State authorities in utter violation of Rule 14 (b) read with Section 92 of the Act. We, thus, hold the authorities only liable for illegal auction sale of the vehicle in contravention of the statutory provisions, and not any third party/purchaser. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the auction purchaser has been enjoying use of the vehicle since it was auction sold on 26.08.2021. Returning the vehicle to the petitioner, therefore, now nearly one and half years later, would not subserve the interest of justice. 22. In view of the above conclusion, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has been deprived of his vehicle without any authority of law, where petitioner's constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been violated. 23. As has been noted at the very outset, small amount of 200 ml IMFL from an unsealed bottle was allegedly recovered from the possession of seven persons said to be sitting in the WagonR vehicle. The said seven persons were found occupying a small car like WagonR. 23. As has been noted at the very outset, small amount of 200 ml IMFL from an unsealed bottle was allegedly recovered from the possession of seven persons said to be sitting in the WagonR vehicle. The said seven persons were found occupying a small car like WagonR. There is no finding recorded by the confiscating authority in either of the two orders dated 05-07-2021 or 26.08.2021 that based on recovery of such small quantity of IMFL that too allegedly from the possession of seven persons sitting in the car, the same was liable for confiscation. There is no finding recorded by the confiscating authority that the car was being used for carrying 200 ml of IMFL. 24. In view of the consideration, and for the reasons indicated above, this Court would find the order of the confiscating authority dated 26.08.2021, the product of an exercise of jurisdiction de hors the provisions contained in the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, a colourable exercise of jurisdiction and in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, we allow this writ application with the following directions:— (i) The Collector, Begusarai (Respondent No. 2) is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum equivalent to the insured amount of the vehicle as on the date of its seizure as per the insurance policy, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with a copy of the insurance policy. (ii) For the harassment caused to the petitioner because of arbitrary and hasty manner in which the petitioner’s vehicle has been auction sold by the authorities in contravention of the statutory provision under Rule 14(b) read with Section 92 of the Act and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, we consider it fit to compensate the petitioner by directing the Collector to pay an additional lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- within the aforesaid period. (iii) If the amount is not paid within a period of two months, both the aforementioned amount shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (iv) The legally misplaced swiftness with which a new vehicle (2020 make) came to be auction sold illegally in 2021 by the authorities, raises a sense of suspicion over the bona fide of the concerned officer(s). (iv) The legally misplaced swiftness with which a new vehicle (2020 make) came to be auction sold illegally in 2021 by the authorities, raises a sense of suspicion over the bona fide of the concerned officer(s). We, accordingly, direct the Chief Secretary, Bihar to look into it to reach a conclusion as to whether a case is made out for initiation of disciplinary proceeding against any officer(s) or not. We direct him to find out the identity of the person to whom the vehicle has been auction sold so as to infer as to whether the auction sale in favour of the person was mala fide, or for any extraneous consideration or not. 25. This writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations.