The Gujarat High Court has stayed a DSP’s order confiscating a loading auto-rickshaw allegedly used to transport liquor, questioning whether an enforcement officer can permanently take away a vehicle while the related criminal trial is still pending.
Justice M K Thakker issued notice to the Gujarat government after vehicle owner Premaji Vajir challenged the confiscation order passed by the DSP of Tharad division. The court directed that the order remain stayed and posted the matter for further hearing on October 22.
The case concerns a vehicle seized by Tharad police earlier this year in connection with an allegation that it was being used to transport liquor. Vajir had approached the lower court seeking release of the muddamal vehicle, but the request was declined after the courts noted that the quantity of liquor allegedly recovered was more than 20 litres.
While the criminal proceedings were continuing, the DSP issued an order confiscating the vehicle. Confiscation effectively transfers ownership of the seized property to the government, prompting Vajir to approach the High Court.
Vajir’s counsel argued that the DSP had relied on Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, but did not have independent authority to confiscate the vehicle without an order from a competent court. The petition contended that the provision deals with articles liable to confiscation and the powers of the court, while Section 123 authorises seizure but does not give an authorised prohibition officer the power to confiscate property.
The petitioner also relied on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment that distinguished between seizure and confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The argument is significant because seizure allows authorities to take control of property during an investigation, while confiscation permanently affects ownership.
The dispute follows an amendment approved by the Gujarat assembly in 2024. The Gujarat Prohibition (Amendment) Bill, 2024 changed Section 98(2) to enable the government to auction vehicles allegedly used to transport liquor and other intoxicants before the criminal case reaches its final judgment, subject to court permission. Before the amendment, vehicles seized in prohibition cases generally could not be released until the court delivered its final order.
The state government has been issued notice in the High Court proceedings. The court’s interim order keeps the DSP’s confiscation decision on hold while it examines the authority available to prohibition officials under the amended law. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on October 22.
