--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 9187 / 2011 MOUNT EVEREST BREWERIES LTD., Vs. STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER * * * * * O R D E R ( 25/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order of confiscation passed u/S. 47-A of the MP Excise Act, 1915. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is a manufacturer of beer having its registered office at Calcutta and Brewery unit in Tehsil Mhow Distt. Indore. Petitioner has further stated that beer was being transported from the Unit to the Warehouse, however, on 13/2/11 the Driver as the warehouse was closed, went to Dewas from Indore and at Dewas he was arrested for an offence u/S. 34(2) of the MP Excise Act, 1915. It has also been stated that an application for Supurdginama was filed --- 2 --- before the JMFC, Dewas and it was rejected vide order dt. 21/2/11. It has also been stated that a revision petition was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Dewas and the same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge Dewas on 25/2/11. Petitioner has further stated that thereafter a Misc. Criminal Case was preferred before this Court ie., M.Cr.C.No. 1736 / 2011 and this Court allowed the M.Cr.C., and directed the respondents therein to handover the beer seized to the petitioner on Supurdgi. The petitioner's grievance is that the Collector without handing over the beer on Supurdgi has passed an order u/S. 47-A confiscating the Beer in question. His contention is that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner and therefore the order is bad in law. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that a truck load of Beer was seized from Dewas and an offence was registered u/S. 34(2) of the Excise Act, 1915. The application for Supurdginama was rejected by the JMFC, Dewas and the learned Sessions Judge has also dismissed --- 3 --- the petitioner's application for releasing the Beer on Supurdgi. It is also true that this Court has passed an order on 23/8/11 for handing over the Beer in question on Supurdgi to the petitioner. However, the fact remains that now the Collector has passed an order u/S. 47-A and a notice was issued to the person from whom the Beer was seized. Learned counsel for the respondent State Mr. Bhuwan Deshmukh has argued before this Court that there is an alternative remedy u/S. 47-B of the MP Excise Act. Sec. 47-B reads as under : 47-B Appeal against the order of confiscation : (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation passed under sub – Section (2) of Section 47-A may within thirty days of such order prefer an appeal to the Collector concerned or to any other officer authorised by the State Government by notification (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority). Such appeal memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against. (2) The Appellate Authority on presentation of such memorandum of appeal, issue a notice to the appellant and to any other person who is likely --- 4 --- to be adversely affected by the order that may be passed in appeal. (3) The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties to the appeal, shall pass an order confirming, reversing or modifying the order of confiscation appealed against : Provided that he may pass such order of interim nature for custody, disposal etc., of the confiscated articles during the pendency of appeal, as may appear to him just or proper in the circumstances of the case, but he shall have no power to stay the order of confiscation appealed against during the pendency of appeal. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is having a remedy of preferring an appeal before the competent appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Jagatjit Industries Ltd., Vs. State of MP reported in 2009 (2) JLJ 89 and his contention is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case, the order passed u/S. 47-A deserves to be set aside. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and in the present case a notice was issued to the person from whom the liquir was --- 5 --- seized (beer) and therefore as remedy of appeal is available, the question of interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court does not arise. Resultantly, the admission is declined. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR