Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Kumar Katiyar (Ashish Katiyar) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504
1 WP. No. 6574 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6574 of 2017
ASHISH KUMAR KATIYAR (ASHISH KATIYAR)
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
(7.1) पपिटटीशनर ददद्वारद्वा प्रसससस ररट पपिटटीशन सदस्वीकद्वार करसते हसए पददद्वाददिस आदितेश ददिनद्वानांक 28.09.2017 अनतेगग्जर पिस्वी-1 कको अपिद्वासस/ननरसस करसते हसए पपिटटीशनर कते पदरूदद्ध सतेदद्वा सनांबनांद्धस्वी अनन्य ककोई समद्वान प्रनसककल आदितेशको / ककतन्य कको ननरसस ककन्यते ग्जद्वानते ककी ककपिद्वा करर ।
(7.2) अनन्य उचचिस ररट, आदितेश अथदद्वा ननदिर श नन्यद्वान्य दहस मर पपिटटीशनर कते पिक्ष मर ग्जद्वारटी करनते ककी ककपिद्वा करर , प्रकरण वन्यन्य रतेसपिकोननतेननस सते ददिलद्वान्यते ग्जद्वानते ककी ककपिद्वा करर ।
2. Learned counsel for respondents submit that petitioner is having alternate remedy to approach before the Arbitrator as per the clause mentioned in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 2 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 agreement and also having the remedy to file appeal before the Divisional Commissioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for petitioner submits that no proper process has been adhered to by respondents and directly the impugned order has been issued.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Now, the question for consideration is as to whether this Court can dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy or not?
6. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and another, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 675 has held as under:
"37. We have given most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. So far as preliminary objection raised by the Corporation before the High Court is concerned, in our considered view, the same was well founded and ought to have been upheld. It was urged before the High Court on behalf of the Corporation and the State Government that the writ petition was premature inasmuch as no retrenchment had been affected. Several disputed questions of fact were involved in the petition. If the contention of the Samiti was that there was illegal closure of undertaking or there was non-payment of wages by the employer, appropriate proceedings could have been initiated under industrial law. In fact, one of the Judges of the Division Bench upheld the contention and observed that the employees could have claimed closure compensation under Section 25- FFF of the Act or could have approached prescribed authority under the Payment of Wages Act relying upon Section 33-C(2) of the Act or Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The other Single Judge of the Division Bench, however, held that the writ petition had been entertained and interim Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 3 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 orders were also passed. Relying upon Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331], the learned Judge held that "the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy if the same has been entertained and interim order has been passed".
(emphasis supplied)
38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down in Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal". But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court. The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus:
(Suresh Chandra Tewari case [AIR 1992 All 331], AIR p. 331) "2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed."
(emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 4 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner."
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1500 decided on 22.11.2019 in Civil Appeal No.8945/2019 has held as under:
"23. We now turn to the question whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition because of availability of adequate appellate remedy. The law on the point is very clear and was summarised in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal AIR (2014) 1 SCC 603] as under:--
"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 5 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86], Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131], Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [(2005) 6 SCC 499])
12. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission [AIR 1954 SC 207], Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [AIR 1955 SC 425], Union of India v. T.R. Varma [AIR 1957 SC 882], State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh [AIR 1958 SC 86] and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 1089] have held that though Article 226 confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted. [See N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar [AIR 1959 SC 422], Municipal Council, Khurai v. Kamal Kumar [AIR 1965 SC 1321 : (1965) 2 SCR 653], Siliguri Municipality v. Amalendu Das [(1984) 2 SCC 436 : 1984 SCC (Tax) 133], S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan [(1988) 1 SCC 572], Rajasthan SRTC v. Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 6 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1955) 31 ATC 110], Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293], A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [(2000) 7 SCC 695], L.L. Sudhakar Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2001) 6 SCC 634], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Pratap Singh v. State of Haryana [(2002) 7 SCC 484 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v.
ITO21 [(2003) 1 SCC 72]] ...
15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419], Titaghur Paper Mills case [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 7 WP. No. 6574 of 2017
24. Recently, in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85], the principles laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] were reiterated as under:
"The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]..."
25. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the approach adopted by the High Court in refusing to entertain the Writ Petition. The submission that once the threshold was crossed despite the preliminary objection being raised, the High Court ought not to have considered the issue regarding alternate remedy, may not be correct. The first order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the High Court did record the preliminary objection but was prima facie of the view that the transactions defined in Section 115QA were initially confined only to those covered by Section 77A of the Companies Act. Therefore, without rejecting the preliminary objection, notice was issued in the matter. The subsequent order undoubtedly made the earlier interim order absolute. However, the preliminary objection having not been dealt with and disposed of, the matter was still at large.
26. In State of U.P. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti [(2008) 12 SCC 675] this Court dealt with an issue whether after admission, the Writ Petition could not be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The submission was considered by this Court as under:
"38. With respect to the learned Judge, it is neither the legal position nor such a proposition has been laid down Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 8 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 in Suresh Chandra Tewari [AIR 1992 All 331] that once a petition is admitted, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It is no doubt correct that in the headnote of All India Reporter (p. 331), it is stated that "petition cannot be rejected on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing appeal". But it has not been so held in the actual decision of the Court. The relevant para 2 of the decision reads thus: (Suresh Chandra Tewari case, AIR p. 331) "2. At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed."
(emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 9 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner.
27. We do not, therefore, find any error in the approach of and conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is relevant to mention that the concessions given on behalf of the Revenue as recorded in the directions issued by the High Court also take care of matters of prejudice, if any. Consequently, the appellant, as a matter of fact, will have a fuller, adequate and efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the appellate authority.
28. Certain issues raised during the course of hearing touching upon the aspects whether the appellant is liable under Section 115QA of the Act or whether the transaction of buy back of shares in the present matter would come within the statutory contours of said Section 115QA or not, are issues which will be gone into at the appropriate stages by the concerned authorities; and as such we have refrained from dealing with those issues."
8. From the above, it is clear that the impugned order can very well be challenged by petitioner before the appropriate forum.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is having alternate remedy to approach before the Arbitrator / to file appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, present petition is disposed of with liberty to seek alternate, efficacious remedy before the appropriate forum/appellate authority/Arbitrator within a period of one month. If petitioner approaches before the appropriate Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14504 10 WP. No. 6574 of 2017 forum/appellate authority/Arbitrator within a period of one month from today, then appropriate forum/appellate authority/Arbitrator is directed to decide the appeal/representation of petitioner on merit, ignoring the delay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 5/6/2026 8:04:19 PM