M/S Jalan Transolutions INDIA LTD. vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable against the impugned show cause notice, as it was issued pursuant to a remand order by the Appellate Authority. Citing the Division Bench judgment in Anant Singh and another vs. Govind and others (1999 RN 99), the Court reiterated that a remand order does not decide the merits of the case and does not cause prejudice to either party, as it allows for a full opportunity of hearing before the original authority. The Court found that the petitioners would have the opportunity to raise all their grounds before the authorities to whom the matter was remanded. Therefore, no interference was warranted, and the petition lacked merit.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Jalan Transolutions India Ltd. and others, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 02.07.2026 issued by the Forest Range Officer, Damoh (Respondent No. 2). The notice was part of proceedings concerning the seizure and proposed confiscation of a truck (HR55AA7261) and its consignment of Tendu Patta. The petitioners claimed to have purchased the Tendu Patta legally and possessed all valid transit and purchase documents, including a GST invoice. The truck was intercepted on 15/01/2025, despite having valid documents. An earlier appeal to the Appellate Authority (Conservator of Forests, Sagar Circle) had resulted in a remand order for fresh decision. The impugned show cause notice was issued pursuant to this remand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against a remand order issued by an authority, particularly when the petitioners possess all valid transit and purchase documents for the seized goods (Tendu Patta)? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that the show cause notice and confiscation proceedings were illegal, malafide, and improper, as they possessed all valid documents, including purchase invoices, transit passes, GST invoices, and vehicle papers. They argued that the continued proceedings and the impugned notice were arbitrary and sought quashing of the notice and proceedings, along with the release of the truck and goods. Revenue/State's argument: The learned State counsel vehemently opposed the petition averments and prayed for its dismissal.