HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6226 of 2019 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj, in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2019 (Smt. Chandrawati Devi vs. State of U.P.) as well as order dated 20.07.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Maharajganj in Misc. Case No. D201805447000518 (State OF U.P. vs. Awadesh Kumar) under Section 72 U.P. Excise Act, 1955, Police Station - Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. A further prayer has also been made to issue direction to concerned authority to release the vehicle having Registration No. UP 53-G-5253 in favor of the petitioner forthwith. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his vehicle was seized in Case Crime No. 58 of 2018 , under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act at Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that her vehicle has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case, whereas it was not involved in the transportation of illicit liqour. The petitioner, being the registered owner of the vehicle, moved an application for release of her vehicle before the Court of the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, where confiscation proceedings in Case No. D201805447000518 (State OF U.P. vs. Awadesh Kumar) were pending. He submitted his objection stating that she is the registered owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was duly insured and had a valid permit. Despite this, an order for confiscation of the vehicle, was passed by the District Magistrate on 30.07.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2018, the petitioner filed Misc. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Chandrawati Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Appeal No. 2 of 2019 (Smt. Chandrawati Devi vs. State of U.P.). The said appeal was also rejected as not maintainable on 12.02.2019, upholding the findings recorded by the District Magistrate in the order dated 30.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the courts have committed gross illegality in denying the release of the petitioner's vehicle in his favour. 5. Learned AGA for the State has submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was seized while it was involved in the illegal transportation of illicit liquor in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, and that the order of confiscation of the vehicle does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court will not enter into the merits of the facts upon which the FIR against the petitioner was registered under the provisions of U.P. Excise Act as those involve disputed questions of fact. No substantial ground has been shown by the petitioner to establish that his vehicle was falsely implicated by the police authorities. However, this Court is of the view that confiscation of the vehicle should not result in deprivation of the owner's right to receive the said vehicle upon furnishing adequate security. 8. This Court further finds that both courts have failed to consider the settled legal position that the owner must be afforded an opportunity to redeem the vehicle on deposit of its value or furnishing of adequate security as may be determined by the competent authority such as the RTO. In the present case, it is evident that no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. The impugned order reflects non-application of mind and failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned orders at this stage, inasmuch as the ends of justice would be adequately met by permitting the petitioner to approach before District Magistrate, Maharajganj by submitting appropriate application seeking release/redemption of the vehicle. Accordingly, without setting aside the impugned orders, it is provided that in case the petitioner files an appropriate application before the concerned District Magistrate within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with observations made hereinabove. 10. The concerned District Magistrate shall, while deciding such application, specifically consider the claim of the petitioner for release of the vehicle on deposit of its value, as may be determined by the RTO. The aforesaid A227 No. 6226 of 2019 2 exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of such application. It is further provided that till the aforesaid period, or till the decision of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken in respect of the vehicle in question. 11. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. May 7, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 6226 of 2019 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad