Bihar govt draws flak from HC over manner of implementation of

The Patna High Court today pulled up the Bihar government over the way it had implemented prohibition, saying it was "insensitive" and made people, within as well as outside the state, suffer.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay issued a notice to the chief secretary, directing him to explain "why such action is being taken which is not only creating difficulties for the citizens at large but also multiplying litigation".
The court passed the order on a petition filed by North Bengal State Transport Corporation, which had challenged the confiscation of one of its buses.

The bus was confiscated in Barauni police station area of Begusarai district in July last year after a passenger was allegedly found carrying a bottle of liquor.
Sale and consumption of liquor in Bihar was completely banned nearly two years ago by the Nitish Kumar government.
The court was of the view that "when the bus belongs to a statutory corporation, the officers should not have taken the extreme step of seizing the vehicle and initiating confiscation proceedings".

"Day in and day out, we are faced with a situation wherein for an offence said to have been committed under the Prohibition Act, actions are being taken by officers concerned in a manner which does not show application of mind and analyzing of the facts in a proper manner," the bench observed.

The court also cited the example of a bank official whose household goods were seized after liquor was found inside the vehicle transporting his belongings following his transfer from Noida to West Bengal.
"Instead of proceeding against the owner and the driver, the entire household goods of the bank officer were seized and he had come to this court seeking release of his household items", the court said.
"If the officers responsible had analyzed the facts properly, inconvenience to the citizen stationed in Noida, who was transporting the household goods to Kolkata on transfer, could have been avoided," the court remarked.

Fixing January 31 as the next date of hearing in the matter, the court directed "the officers, who are responsible for the action taken in this case, to be present before us and indicate to us as to what is the reason which compelled them to seize the bus".