Writ Court Can't Grant Interim Relief After Relegating Party To Alternative Forum: MP High Court

Update: 2026-06-12 11:44 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that once a writ court has refused to entertain a petition and directed the petitioner to seek an alternative forum, it cannot exercise its jurisdiction to pass an interim order. The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Khot observed:"Thus, it is clear that where the Writ Court has refused to entertain the writ petition and has relegated...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that once a writ court has refused to entertain a petition and directed the petitioner to seek an alternative forum, it cannot exercise its jurisdiction to pass an interim order. 

The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Deepak Khot observed:

"Thus, it is clear that where the Writ Court has refused to entertain the writ petition and has relegated the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before any other different forum, then writ jurisdiction cannot be excercised to pass an inerim order".

A writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the collector, Mining Officer, Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer to take immediate and effective steps to completely stop all illegal sand mining activities in and around Mehda Ghat, Village Mehda in District Bhind. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that some private persons had encroached on the land belonging to the petitioner and were carrying out the mining work. However, the petitioner had not impleaded the alleged encroachers in his petition. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the writ petition is not maintainable against a private person, it appears that the petitioner is alleging the violation of his civil rights by private persons. Therefore, he had an efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit. 

The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to file a civil suit, but in meanwhile seeks protection of his possession. 

Examining the facts, the court held that in cases where the writ court has refused to entertain the writ petition and had directed him to avail a statutory remedy before another forum, then it cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction to pass an interim order. 

Therefore, the bench rejected the prayer for the grant of a temporary injunction and dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Shyan Sundar v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-19938-2026

For Petitioner: Advocates Vineet Saxena and Satendra Singh Rajawat

For State: Government Advocate Rajendra Jain

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags:    

Similar News