← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/13717/2025disposed

Riya Dey @ Ria Dey v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-20Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13717 of 2025 ====================================================== Riya Dey @ Ria Dey, Daughter of Ashim Dey, Resident of Village- E/143 Ramgarh Raja S.C. Mallick Road Naktala, S.O. Kolkata, West Bengal. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

District Magistrate Cum Collector, Kisanganj, District Kishanganj. 4.

The Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj. 5.

The Station House Officer, Madh Nishedh, P.S. Excise, District- Kishanganj. 6.

A.S.I, Madh Nishedh, Forigaul Enquiry Post, P.S.- Excise, DistrictKishanganj. 7.

The Excise Superintendent, Kishanganj.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Anurag Saurav, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sharda Raje Singh, Advocate Mr. Ankesh Bibhu, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ravi Ranjan, AC to SC-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 20-11-2025 Since the vehicle in question has already been released on payment of penalty at the rate of 10% of the insured value of the vehicle, the reliefs prayed for in the writ application have become infructuous.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an issue that in the present case, if the vehicle in question was found with the alleged 1.6 litres of liquor without the knowledge

Patna High Court CWJC No.13717 of 2025(2) dt.20-11-2025 2/2 of the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicle, no penalty could have been imposed upon her.

3. In our opinion, this plea was to be raised before the competent authority/Confiscating Authority. The petitioner cannot agitate this for the first time before this Court in this writ application. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order, she is at liberty to seek her remedy in accordance with law. 4.

This writ application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Sourendra Pandey, J) lekhi/- U