The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a critical interim directive to protect a petitioner’s interest in a Rs. 15 lakh rehabilitation compensation package amid an ongoing matrimonial dispute. In a clear affirmation of procedural fairness and equitable access to state benefits, the Court halted unilateral withdrawals and mandated a time-bound decision on the petitioner’s representation, reinforcing the state’s duty to act impartially when family conflict intersects with statutory entitlements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nirmala Gupta, is a beneficiary of a rehabilitation package under forest land acquisition policy, entitling her to Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation for displacement. The compensation was sanctioned by the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forest and Area Director, Sanjay Tiger Reserve, Sidhi, with explicit instructions that the amount be deposited in a joint account held jointly by the petitioner and her husband, and that no withdrawal be permitted without the mutual consent of both parties.
Key Facts
- The compensation amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was sanctioned under applicable forest rehabilitation policy.
- The sanction order, referenced in Annexures P/6, P/7, and P/8, mandated deposit into a joint account with dual consent requirement for withdrawals.
- A joint account was opened at Union Bank of India, Branch Manager, Respondent No.6.
- The petitioner and her husband are embroiled in a matrimonial dispute.
- On or before 28.03.2026, the husband withdrew Rs. 2,00,000/- without the petitioner’s consent.
- The petitioner fears further unauthorized withdrawal of the remaining Rs. 13,00,000/-.
- The petitioner filed a representation dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/9) seeking intervention to prevent unilateral withdrawal and to ensure fair disposition of the compensation.
- As of the date of filing the writ petition, the representation remained unacknowledged and undecided.
Procedural History
- 06.04.2026: Petitioner submitted representation (Annexure P/9) to the Forest Department seeking protection of her interest in the compensation.
- Between 06.04.2026 and 04.05.2026: No response or action taken by the Forest authorities.
- 04.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 13694 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (a) A writ of mandamus directing deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the joint account as per policy; (b) Immediate release of 50% of the amount to her; (c) Direction to decide her representation dated 06.04.2026 within 15 days; (d) Any other relief deemed fit.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the Forest Department’s own policy required joint control of the compensation, and that unilateral withdrawal by her husband violated the terms of the sanction and exposed her and her daughter to financial harm. She emphasized that her representation was pending without any response, violating principles of natural justice.
The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, conceded that the representation would be considered in accordance with law, without opposing the core request for procedural safeguard.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State, having mandated a joint account with dual consent for disbursement of rehabilitation compensation, can permit unilateral withdrawal by one party during a matrimonial dispute, and whether the failure to decide a pending representation within a reasonable time violates the petitioner’s right to fair administrative action.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the explicit terms of the Forest Department’s policy as documented in Annexures P/6 - P/8, which required joint account control and mutual consent for withdrawal. He argued that the withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/- without consent constituted a breach of the State’s own directive and created a risk of irreparable harm. He further contended that the non-decision on the representation dated 06.04.2026 amounted to administrative inaction, violating the principles of audi alteram partem and the right to timely redressal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The Deputy Advocate General did not dispute the factual matrix. She acknowledged the policy requirement and conceded that the representation had not been decided. She submitted that the State would consider the representation in accordance with law, without opposing the need for interim protection of the funds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the matrimonial dispute or determine ownership of the compensation amount. Instead, it focused on the State’s own policy framework and its obligation to implement it faithfully. The Court noted that the Forest Department had explicitly imposed a condition of joint control over the compensation, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that both parties would be protected from unilateral action.
"The State, having laid down a clear policy requiring dual consent for withdrawal, cannot permit either party to circumvent that condition merely because of a private dispute."
The Court emphasized that administrative inaction on the petitioner’s representation dated 06.04.2026, spanning nearly a month without any response, was indefensible. The Court held that such delay, particularly in matters involving financial entitlements, violates the principle of reasonable time in administrative decision-making.
The Court further observed that the Union Bank of India, as the custodian of the funds, was bound by the policy directive and could not act as a passive intermediary. It was under a legal duty to enforce the dual consent condition.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India (Respondent No.6), shall not permit either the petitioner or her husband to withdraw any portion of the Rs. 15,00,000/- compensation amount without the written consent of both parties.
- The Forest Department (Respondent No.2) shall consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 06.04.2026 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
- The decision shall be a speaking and reasoned order.
- The petitioner shall be immediately intimated of the outcome.
- The State shall bear the cost of providing a certified copy of this order to the Forest Department.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Policy Must Be Enforced, Not Ignored
- Practitioners must insist that government agencies adhere strictly to their own published policies, especially when those policies create legitimate expectations.
- Where a policy imposes conditions (e.g., dual consent), non-compliance by implementing agencies or third parties (like banks) constitutes actionable administrative failure.
Delay in Deciding Representations Is a Violation
- A representation pending for over 30 days without any response is prima facie unreasonable.
- Courts will impose strict timelines (e.g., 30 days) for administrative decisions in cases involving financial entitlements, particularly where hardship is alleged.
Banks as Agents of State Policy
-
Financial institutions acting as disbursement agents for state compensation schemes are bound by the conditions laid down by the sanctioning authority.
-
Banks cannot claim ignorance of policy directives; they are under a legal obligation to enforce them.
-
Always verify policy documents attached to compensation orders before disbursement.
-
File writ petitions not just for monetary relief, but to enforce procedural safeguards when administrative inaction threatens entitlements.
-
Use representations as triggers for judicial intervention - delay in deciding them is a ground for mandamus.
