The Supreme Court has criticised a common High Court practice. Often, High Courts refuse to entertain a writ petition due to an effective alternate remedy. Yet, they still grant interim protection for a short period. The Supreme Court said this approach is inconsistent and contrary to settled law.
What the Bombay HC Did
The observations arose from a Bombay High Court order. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition. It held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy.
However, the High Court also granted an interim stay of the impugned order. It granted the stay so the petitioner could approach the alternate forum.
SC Says Proceedings Must End Once Writ Is Declined
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma deprecated this approach. The Court held that once a High Court declines writ jurisdiction, the matter must end there.
In other words, if the High Court refuses to entertain the petition, the proceedings cannot continue. The Bench noted that, in such cases, “the proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there.”
Interim Relief Not Permissible Without Survival of Writ
The Supreme Court further clarified the principle. If the High Court cannot grant final relief in the writ petition, it also cannot grant interim relief. Therefore, the High Court should not stay the challenged order or direct status quo in such a situation.
Moreover, the Court said a High Court cannot pass interim orders only to give the petitioner time to approach the alternate forum.
Reliance on Constitution Bench Ruling
The Bench relied on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta (AIR 1952 SC 12). It observed that interim protection in these circumstances would run “in the teeth of” that binding precedent.
Parting Note to High Courts
Finally, the Supreme Court urged High Courts to take due notice of binding rulings. It also expressed hope that such situations do not recur.
“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 Bench observed.
Case Details
Cause Title: Mangal Rajendra Kamthe v. Tahsildar, Purandhar & Ors.
