Supreme Court Deprecates High Courts Granting Interim Relief While Declining Writ Petitions To Avail Alternate Remedies
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts granting interim stay orders after declining to entertain the writ petitions to enable the party to avail alternative remedy, calling it a self-contradictory approach that defeats the purpose of judicial discipline. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made a parting observation while hearing...
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of High Courts granting interim stay orders after declining to entertain the writ petitions to enable the party to avail alternative remedy, calling it a self-contradictory approach that defeats the purpose of judicial discipline.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma made a parting observation while hearing a matter arising from a Bombay High Court order, which had declined to entertain a writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy, yet proceeded to grant an interim stay on the impugned order to enable the petitioner to approach the alternate forum.
Deprecating this move by the High Court, the bench observed that once the High Court declines a writ petition, nothing survives, and it would be impermissible for the High Court to stay the operation of the order that is under challenge, to enable the petitioner to move to the appropriate alternative forum.
“It is settled law that once the high court, upon application of mind, declines to entertain a writ petition in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy for grant of relief is available but such remedy has not been pursued by the petitioner, the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there; however, in such a circumstance when no final relief can effectively be granted on the petition, it is impermissible to pass an order in the nature of an interim relief [either by granting stay of operation of the order under challenge or by directing status quo to be maintained] till such time the aggrieved petitioner approaches the alternative forum. Such an order, as and when passed, would be in the teeth of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (AIR 1952 SC 12).”
Taking note of the constitution bench ruling in Madan Gopal Rungta (supra), the bench asked the High Courts to take note of this binding precedent and make sure that no case of a similar nature arises in the future for the Court's consideration.
“We trust that the high courts will duly take notice of these binding precedents and hope that no case of a similar nature arises in future for our consideration.”, the court said.
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Interim Relief – Alternative Remedy – The Supreme Court reiterated that once a High Court declines to entertain a writ petition on the ground of an available efficacious alternative remedy, it cannot pass interim orders (such as a stay or status quo) to operate until the petitioner approaches the alternative forum - Order – Interim relief can only be granted in aid of, and as ancillary to, the main relief available upon the final determination of rights - It is impermissible for a High Court to grant interim relief as the "only and final relief" while simultaneously declining to decide on the merits of the case or the rights of the parties.
Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court observed that when proceedings are terminated due to the existence of an alternative remedy, the proceedings do not survive and must end immediately - Passing interim orders in such circumstances "circumvents" statutory provisions and exceeds the scope of Article 226. [Relied on State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (1952) AIR 1952 SC 12; Paras 6, 7, 8]
Cause Title: MANGAL RAJENDRA KAMTHE VERSUS TAHSILDAR, PURANDHAR & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 194