IMPORTANT POINT
Writ Petition – Once High Court declines to entertain writ petition in 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 petitioner, proceedings do not survive and must draw to an end then and there.

ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. The High Court of Bombay has declined to initiate proceedings for contempt by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2025, on the ground of absence of any element of ‘civil contempt’. We see no reason to interfere therewith; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

4. A parting observation, however, seems to be necessary considering the contents of the order of which contempt was alleged. The High Court, by its order dated 8th September 2025, allowed the petitioner to withdraw his writ petition because a remedy of revision under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1906 was available against the order under challenge, which he did not pursue. However, to facilitate the revisional forum to be approached by the petitioner, the High Court directed that no coercive steps were to be taken and stayed the implementation of the order under challenge till 30th September, 2025.

5. Orders of similar nature have engaged our attention where the high courts, while declining to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy to the writ petitioner(s) concerned have, nonetheless, granted relief [either by staying operation of the order(s) under challenge or directing maintenance of status quo] to be operative for a limited period to enable such petitioner(s) to seek appropriate relief from the alternative forum.

6. 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.

7. At the dawn of the Constitution, this is what the learned Chief Justice speaking for the bench in Madan Gopal Rungta (supra) had ruled:

13. ... the existence of the rights is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under this article. The judgment of the Orissa High Court under appeal, however, shows that the Judges have decided nothing at all in respect of the rights of the parties. Indeed they have expressly stated that their observations should not in any way be considered as deciding any of the rights or contentions of the parties raised in the petitions. The whole judgment shows that because of the requirement of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the present respondents could not file a suit against the Government for at least sixty days, the respondent’s position should not in the interval be disturbed and accordingly the Court gave the directions in its order of 2-8-1951. If there was any doubt about the nature of the relief desired to be granted by the order of 2nd August the same Judges have made it perfectly clear by their order of 6th of August, wherein they have stated that except for these directions they were not prepared to make any other order on the petitions. The result therefore is that while the Judges declined to investigate and pronounce on the rights of the parties and expressly kept the determination thereof in abeyance in the suit proposed to be filed by the present respondents, they gave directions for interim relief till such suit was filed. It must be noted that with the passing of the order of 2-8-1951, containing directions in t