Restoration of liquor supply depends on clearing adjusted excise dues; writ challenge to show-cause notices was premature.

Outstanding excise dues prevented restoration of liquor supply: the waiver for the Simhastha period had to be adjusted against liability, and supply could follow only after the balance was cleared under the agreement and the M. P. Excise Act, 1915. A writ challenge to the show-cause notices was also premature because no final adverse order had been passed, and the statutory mechanism for action on continued default remained available. The matter was disposed of without interference, while allowing the petitioner to clear the adjusted dues before coercive steps were taken.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of liquor supply despite outstanding excise-related dues and the waiver granted for the Simhastha period; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the impugned show-cause notices and proposed action.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of liquor supply despite outstanding excise-related dues and the waiver granted for the Simhastha period.

Analysis: The petitioner had not cleared the dues required under Clause 36 of the notification dated 05/02/2016. The respondents, however, accepted that the amount waived for the Simhastha period would be adjusted against the outstanding liability. The Court held that supply could not be restored while dues remained unpaid, but if the petitioner cleared the balance after giving credit for the waiver, the respondents would be free to restore supply in accordance with the agreement and the M. P. Excise Act, 1915.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to immediate restoration of supply, but restoration could follow upon clearance of the adjusted dues.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the impugned show-cause notices and proposed action.

Analysis: The impugned communications were only show-cause notices, and the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked at that stage because no final adverse order had yet been passed. The Court also noted that the statutory mechanism under Section 31 of the M. P. Excise Act, 1915 remained available for action in case of continued default. On that basis, the challenge to the notices was treated as premature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the show-cause notices alone.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of without interference, with limited protection granted to the petitioner to clear the adjusted dues before coercive steps were taken.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging only a show-cause notice is ordinarily premature, and a licensee in default of statutory dues cannot claim restoration of supply until the dues are paid after lawful adjustment of any granted exemption.

---