Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act: Supreme Court Stays High Court's Order on De-Sealing of Goods

The case of The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. M/S Smart India Marketing & Anr. revolves around the legality of an interim order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna concerning the de-sealing of a godown and the release of goods under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the State of Bihar challenged the High Court’s decision.

Background

The Bihar government, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, had sealed a godown owned by the respondent, M/S Smart India Marketing. The Act imposes stringent restrictions on the possession, sale, and distribution of liquor and other related items in the state. The authorities took action based on the provisions of this Act and a Notification issued on January 24, 2017, under Section 24(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

The respondent challenged this action before the Patna High Court, which granted interim relief, directing the State to de-seal the godown and release the goods upon the execution of a surety bond worth Rs. 40 lakhs. Aggrieved by this order, the State of Bihar approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s order undermined the intent and objectives of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

Arguments of the Petitioner (State of Bihar)

The State contended that the High Court’s order granting interim relief was in direct conflict with the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, which mandates stringent enforcement of prohibition-related laws.
It was argued that allowing the release of goods could set a precedent that might weaken the prohibition framework in Bihar.
The State emphasized that the Notification issued under Section 24(1) of the Act provided a legal basis for the sealing of the godown and the confiscation of goods.
The petitioner further requested an expedited hearing of the case by the High Court to resolve the matter definitively.

Arguments of the Respondent (M/S Smart India Marketing)

The respondent argued that the State’s action was arbitrary and had led to significant financial losses.
It was contended that the sealing of the godown was done without adequate justification and in violation of their legal rights.
The respondent maintained that they were willing to provide a financial guarantee (surety bond) as directed by the High Court, ensuring compliance with any future orders.
The respondent also requested permission to amend the pleadings to include additional grievances related to the seizure.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the arguments and noted that the case involved the interpretation of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, particularly in light of the Notification issued by the State Government. The Court considered the impact of the High Court’s interim order and its potential implications on the implementation of prohibition laws in Bihar.

The Court stated:

“Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel based on the Notification dated 24.01.2017 issued under Section 24(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, we are of the view that the matter needs to be finally decided by the High Court expeditiously.”

The Court further noted that the interim order passed by the High Court could be deferred until a final decision was reached. It emphasized the importance of resolving the case quickly, instructing the High Court to expedite the proceedings.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled:

The High Court should dispose of the main writ petition (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 627 of 2017) as soon as possible, preferably within six weeks.
The respondents were allowed to amend their pleadings within two weeks if they wished to raise additional arguments.
Until the High Court reached a final decision, the implementation of the interim order directing the de-sealing of the godown and the release of goods would be deferred.

The Court made it clear that the presence of government officers for compliance with the interim order would not be required until the final resolution of the matter.

Conclusion

This case highlights the challenges in enforcing prohibition laws and balancing legal rights with government policies. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to legislative provisions while ensuring that judicial interventions do not compromise statutory objectives. The ruling ensures that the case is decided expeditiously while maintaining the enforcement of Bihar’s prohibition laws until a final determination is made.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Bihar vs MS Smart India Mark Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-09-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Stayed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category