JUDGMENT 1. This order disposes of a bunch of petitions registered as Writ Petitions No.274/2014, 277/2014, 278/2014, 280/2014, 275/2014, 276/2014 and 279/2014. The issue involved in these petitions is the same. 2. This bunch of petitions involves three different kinds of cases. The first being Writ Petition No.274/2014, in which FIR was not only lodged but also filed alongwith the pleadings before the Excise Commissioner for claiming the benefit of proviso to rule 19(2) of the M.P. Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996 (for brevity “Rules of 1996”); second category of the cases is Writ Petitions No.277/2014, 278/2014 and 280/2014 where no FIR was produced as the same was not available and instead a certificate issued by the Police Station concerned was brought on record to claim the abovesaid benefit; and the third and last category of the cases is Writ Petitions No. 275/2014, 276/2014 and 279/2014 where no offence was registered, but the factum of accident of the truck carrying the liquor having taken place was reported to the Police Station concerned and the intimation in that regard has been brought on record not only herein but even along with the pleadings before the Excise Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner assailing the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Excise Commissioner and the Deputy Excise Commissioner contends that there has been no application of mind by way of a fact finding enquiry as to whether the deficiency in excess of limits prescribed under rule 16 of the Rules of 1996 was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is submitted that despite the requisite material having been filed in shape of FIR/certificate issued by the Police Station concerned/intimation in regard to the accident to the Police Station, and the same having been brought on record, the Commissioner Excise has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under the proviso to rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1996. It is, thus, contended that in view of the above, the orders passed by all the three forums below are vitiated in law. 4. It is, thus, contended that in view of the above, the orders passed by all the three forums below are vitiated in law. 4. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, relying upon the decision of the Single Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Pooja Marketing Agencies v. Excise Commissioner : 2001 (4) MPLJ 482 submits that the burden of establishing that the deficiency, in excess of limits prescribed under rule 16 of the Rules of 1996, was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, lies heavily upon the petitioner. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove to the satisfaction of the Excise Commissioner by producing material and cogent evidence that unavoidable circumstances or causes beyond the control of the petitioner occasioned the loss in excess of the prescribed limits under rule 16 of the Rules of 1996. But, it is contended that the petitioner has failed to discharge this burden and, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.