Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:173959 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 4001 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jay Narayan Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Byas Kumar Prasad,Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the court of District Judge, Chandauli in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2024 as well as the order of District Magistrate, Chandauli dated 13.03.2024 in Case No.1051/2023, Computer Case No.D202314180001051 (State v. Narayan Yadav and others) under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the vehicle in question bearing Registration no. B.R.31 GA 2919 came to be seized by the police which was carrying illegal liquor and thus on the alleged charge of transportation of illegal liquor, first information report came to be registered and a letter was written to the Excise Department for confiscation and seizure of vehicle and its appropriate disposal. 4. From the order impugned passed by the Collector/ District Magistrate, Chandauli it transpires that notice had been issued on the letter written by the police, however, due to non appearance of the petitioner, the Collector proceeded to pass an ex parte order on the basis of report of Sub Inspector dated 14.09.2023 for confiscation of the vehicle and consequential auction of the same in the purported exercise of power under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. It is against this order that the appeal came to be preferred before the District Judge, Chandauli and the District Judge by the order impugned finally rejected the appeal confirming the order of Collector. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 the endeavour of the court should be to release the vehicle pending inquiry or trial. The argument is that the police should not retain the vehicle in its custody for a long time or indefinite period unless it is absolutely necessary. 6. From the perusal of the order impugned, it transpires that the District Magistrate has clearly passed an ex parte order acknowledging this fact that the petitioner did not appear directing for deposit of amount equivalent to the market value of the vehicle by way of penalty to get it released. The said order upon appeal has been confirmed. In the given facts and circumstances when the petitioner is taking the plea of innocense and the order was passed by the District Magistrate ex parte and vehicle is also an old one, I hereby provide for the petitioner to deposit half of the market value of the vehicle by way of penalty for the purposes of its release and for remaining half of the amount he may furnish security other than bank guarantee. He shall also file an affidavit that he would not be creating any third party rights in respect of vehicle, nor shall be hypothecating the same against any bank loan etc. 7. It is further directed that in the event petitioner deposits the amount of fifty percent of the market value and furnishes security other that bank guarantee of the remaining fifty percent amount and files an affidavit that he will not be transferring the vehicle or hypothecating the vehicle and shall be producing the same as and when required, the vehicle shall be released. 8. The order passed by the District Magistrate Chandauli dated 13.03.2024 as well as the appellate authority dated 27.03.2025 under Section 72 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 stand modified accordingly. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad