Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the authenticity and execution of documents for handing over a substantial stock of liquor to respondent 5, a Division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain, J., sought State’s response and directed the State to produce all signatories of the six panchnamas prepared to document the handing over of the stock at the next hearing.
In the instant matter, the petitioner approached the Court alleging that a substantial stock of liquor, which was in its possession, had gone missing after purportedly being handed over to Respondent 5. It was stated that six panchnamas dated 31-03-2024 and 01-04-2024 were prepared to document the handing over of the remainder stock, however, questioned the authenticity and execution of these documents.
The Manager of respondent 5, made conflicting statements in Court. Initially, he claimed not to have been present at the time the panchnamas were prepared. Later, he retracted and stated that although he was present and “no stock has been handed over by the petitioner to respondent No. 5.” It is contended that it is undisputed that his name or signature did not appear on any of the six panchnamas.
However, respondent 5 argued that the shop handed over was empty and denied receiving any stock from the petitioner. It was argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable in light of Orissa Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries, (2005) 12 SCC 725. It was submitted that where factual disputes are involved, especially those requiring evidence, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked.
Interestingly, a communication dated 08-05-2024 from the Office of the Assistant Excise Commissioner, District Jabalpur, had instructed respondent 5 to deposit the deficit excise duty on the questioned stock. In response, respondent 5 deposited approximately Rs. 6.50 lakhs via three e-challans.
The Court, however, distinguished the present matter from a mere contractual dispute and observed that it involves a potentially serious allegation. The Court stated question as to “whether given to respondent No. 5 or misappropriated by the officers of State who were present on that very night,” is not a simplicitor contractual dispute.
The Court did not issue a final verdict but issued specific directions in view of the ambiguity and conflicting versions. The Court directed that —
-
Respondent-State to produce all signatories of the six panchnamas dated 31-03-2024 at the next hearing.
-
These signatories “shall be required to answer the questions of the Court” alongside officers of the respondent-State who were allegedly involved in handing over the stock.
-
If any individual is reluctant to appear, the State authorities may take the assistance of the Police to ensure their presence, including respondent 5.
[Maa Narmada Associates v. State of M.P., WP No. 39118 of 2024, Decided on 04-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Rahul Diwaker, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Dy. Advocate General of State, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4
Shri Narinder Pal Singh Ruprah, Senior Advocate with Shri Navtej Singh Ruprah, Counsel for the Respondent No. 5
Buy Constitution of India HERE
