Atal Rai vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

He has drawn my attention towards the prayer clause which reads as under :-

(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P/1)

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue operation of the Composite Liquor Shop "Chandon" at its existing approved premises (Bankhedi Road, Chandon) without any hindrance for the entire excise year 2926-27;

(iii) Any other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and appropriate in facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

By referring the impugned order dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) whereby it is stated that on the recommendation made by one Member of Parliament, the action is taken. He has submitted that the District Excise Officer has no authority to initiate such proceeding and he has referred to Rules under the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (General License Conditions). He has referred to Rule (iii) which is for the licensed premises and rule (v) pertains to transfer of sites whereby it is provided that the Collector may order transfer of shops from one locality to another locality. By referring to section 24 of the Excise Act, 1915 and by relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Maa Chamunda Enterprises Vs. State of M.P. and another-(2017) 2 MPWN 107 , he has submitted even such direction is required to be granted by the Collector by considering the material regarding public peace on record.

In the present case, it is apparent that action is initiated pursuant to the recommendation of one person i.e Member of Parliament and, therefore, it is bad in law.

Counsel for the State has submitted that he will take necessary instructions in the matter.

As per his submission, prima facie, no interference is called for in the present petition. However, considering the submissions made at the Bar, the matter requires further consideration of the submission.

Issue notice to the respondents through R.AD on payment of P.F. within three working days. Notice be made returnable in three weeks.

In the meantime, impugned communication dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

C.C as per rules.