A seller is liable for godown breakage only if defective packing or a manufacturing defect is established.

The petitioners—liquor manufacturers and suppliers—challenged Collector’s orders imposing recoveries or penalties for alleged breakage of foreign liquor recorded at or during handling of CSBCL depots.

In the lead matter, the alleged loss was 1,724.02 proof litres, assessed at ₹6,24,785.

The respondents relied on depot panchnamas, some signed by the petitioners’ representatives, and the petitioners’ failure to reply to show-cause notices.

The petitioners contended that, under the supply agreement, risk and property generally passed to CSBCL on receipt, and seller liability for depot breakage was limited to breakage caused by defective or improper packing or a manufacturing defect.

They sought judicial review without first pursuing the statutory appeal.

Whether the petitioners could be held liable for depot breakage without a finding that it resulted from defective or improper packing or a manufacturing defect, as specified in the agreement.

Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy precluded the High Court from entertaining the writ petitions.

Whether the petitions should be rejected because multiple impugned orders were challenged in connected proceedings.

Rule 17(2) of the Chhattisgarh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 prohibits wastage allowance for specified licensees and permits recovery of duty and bottle fee where a deficiency is found; Rule 19 provides for penalties in the circumstances covered by the Rules.

Under Clauses 2.3 and 3.10 of the parties’ agreement, risk and property in the stock lay with the purchaser, subject to the seller’s liability for godown breakage attributable to defective or improper packing or a manufacturing defect.

The alternative-remedy rule is discretionary, not an absolute bar; *Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.* recognises that writ jurisdiction may be exercised in appropriate cases despite an alternative remedy, including where the impugned action warrants writ intervention.

The Court also referred to *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ehsan*, which favours deciding an already-entertained writ petition on its merits absent compelling reasons to relegate the petitioner to another remedy.

The Court held that the contractual terms required the authority to determine the cause of the breakage before shifting liability to the sellers.

The impugned orders recorded shortage or breakage but did not clearly find that defective or improper packing or a manufacturing defect caused it.

A panchnama signed by a petitioner’s representative could establish that breakage was observed and recorded, but not its cause.

Nor could the existence of a deficiency alone justify liability without consideration of the relevant contractual terms.

The orders therefore lacked a reasoned determination of the basis for attributing the loss to the petitioners.

Given that defect, the alternative-remedy objection was not an absolute bar; and the Court declined to reject the connected petitions merely because they challenged multiple orders.

It allowed all the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders and consequential recovery proceedings, and absolved the petitioners of the liabilities imposed under those orders.

The decision did not preclude future action for a deficiency if adjudicated in accordance with the statutory provisions and applicable contractual terms.