Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Maa Narmada Associates vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2025
1 WP-39118-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 39118 of 2024
(M/S MAA NARMADA ASSOCIATES Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 04-04-2025
Shri Rahul Diwaker - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi Dy. Advocate General for the respondent-State.
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah Senior Advocate with Shri Navtej
Singh Ruprah, Advocate for the respondent -5.
Shri Punit Chourasiya, Manager of the respondent No. 5 is present in
person pursuant to order dated 28/03/2025. He states that while preparing
six Panchnamas dated 31.03.2024/01.04.2024 while handing over the
remainder material he was not present on the date and he does know as to
how much remainder material was handed over. Again he says that I was
very much there, however no stock has been handed over by the petitioner to
respondent No. 5. It is also not in dispute that his presence or signature are
not mentioned in six Panchanamas dated 31-03-2024.
Counsel for respondent No. 5 submits that he received empty shop
and there was no stock available therein and no stock has been received from
the petitioner herein by the respondent No. 5.
The respondent-State is directed to find out and produce all the
signatories who appended their signatures on 31.03.2024 Panchnamas, on the
next date of hearing and it is made clear that they shall be required to
answer the questions of the Court on the next date of hearing along with the
Officers of the respondent State who were present and handed over the stock
2 WP-39118-2024
in favour of the respondent no. 5 after taking it from the petitioner herein. It
is made clear that if they are reluctant to be present before this Court, then
the State authority can take the assistance of the Police to ensure their
presence on the next date of hearing including respondent No. 5 personally.
Moreover vide letter dated 08/05/2024 the Office of Assistant Excise
Commissioner District Jabalpur sent a communication to respondent No. 5 to
deposit deficit Excise Duty of the questioned stock and pursuant thereto the
respondent No. 5 has deposited about Rs. 6.50 lakhs vide three different e-
challans.
Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the present petition is
not maintainable and has replied upon the case of Orissa Agro Industries
Corpn. Ltd. and others Vs. Bharati Industries and others reported in (2005)
12 SCC 725 whereby held as under:-
"7. A bare perusal of the High Court's judgment shows that there was clear non-
application of mind. On one hand the High Court observed that the disputed
questions cannot be gone into a writ petition. It was also noticed that the essence of
the dispute was breach of contract. After coming to the above conclusions the High
Court should have dismissed the writ petition. Surprisingly, the High Court
proceeded to examine the case solely on the writ petitioner's assertion and on a very
curious reasoning that though the appellant Corporation claimed that the value of
articles lifted was nearly Rs 14.90 lakhs no details were specifically given. From the
counter-affidavit filed before the High Court it is crystal-clear that relevant details
disputing claim of the writ petitioner were given. Value of articles lifted by the writ
petitioner is a disputed factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is
involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court
should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the
nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual
controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above,
the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question
whether the action of the opposite party in the writ petition amounted to breach of
contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material
evidence to be scrutinised and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be
3 WP-39118-2024
exercised. (See State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics & Chemicals Ltd. [(2002) 1 SCC 216]
)"
The question before this Court at this stage is whether the remainder of
the stock was handed over in favour of the respondent No. 5 as brought on
record as mentioned above. Counsel for respondent No. 5 on instructions
denied the fact that and stated tat no stock was received by the said
respondent. If that is the position that the respondent State has made the
panchnama of handing over, then this court wants to know where this huge
stock of thousands of litres of liquors has gone whether given to respondent
No. 5 or misappropriated by the officers of State who were present on that
very night, which is not a simplicitor contractual dispute.
List on 07.04.2025 at 10:30 at top of the list .
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
MISHRA
