[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jai Enterprises Through Proprietor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4132
1 WP-3381-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3381 of 2026
JAI ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR MUKESH JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Sharan - Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Mittal -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Viraj Godha - G.A. for respondents/State.
ORDER
1] Heard.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Collector, District
Barwani, in Case No.0030/B-121/2025-26, whereby the confiscation of 1197 quintals of wheat
and 17.51 quintals of rice has been ordered;
2. Quash and set aside the order dated 10.01.2026 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act),
Barwani District Barwani in CRA 182/2025, whereby the order dated 03.11.2025 was upheld.
3. Grant any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and just in the facts
and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner, along with costs of the petition."
3] The petitioner is aggrieved of the seizure of its food grains, in all
1197 quintals of wheat and 17.51 quintals of rice. Admittedly, out of the said
quantity, the petitioner has already been returned 598.50 quintals of wheat,
however, the remaining wheat is still lying with the respondents.
4] Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the wheat is
not sold in the market at the earliest, due to its perishable nature, it would
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4132
2 WP-3381-2026
soon become unfit for human consumption and would be required to dispose
of, hence, the respondents may be directed to hand over the remaining food
grains to the petitioner so that he can at least dispose of the same in the
manner so as to fetch the best price. It is also submitted that the entire stock
seized is accounted for, however, without even verifying the same, the food
grains have been seized.
5] On the last date of hearing, this Court had also directed the
counsel for the State to take proper instructions in the matter, and today
counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that presently the
respondents do not intend to sell the aforesaid wheat. It is also submitted that
the total value of the food grains seized was Rs.22,24,640/-, and it was
alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of food grains, which
were obtained by him from Public Distribution System Shops, and was about
to sell the same in the open market.
6] In rebuttal, senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has only obtained empty sacks from the market, in which the food
grains were kept, however, the sacks were of the same nature in which the
food grains at Public Distribution System are kept, hence, a false case has
been slapped against the petitioner.
7] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the
documents filed on record, this Court finds that various disputed questions of
fact are involved, which can only be decided after the parties have led their
evidence. However, in order to ensure that the food grains are not lost
forever due to lapse of time, this Court finds it expedient to allow the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4132
3 WP-3381-2026
petition, and, accordingly, the impugned orders dated 03.11.2025 and
10.01.2026 are hereby set aside, and the respondents are directed to hand
over the remaining food grains to the petitioner on his furnishing surety to
the tune of Rs.7 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Collector, Barwani.
8] With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Pankaj
