The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to seek monetary compensation when an adequate alternate remedy exists in the form of a pending civil suit. This decision reinforces the principle that constitutional remedies are supplementary, not substitutes, for ordinary civil remedies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Akshay S/o Gajanan Kulkarni, filed a writ petition against the Nagar Parishad, Khamgaon, alleging that municipal officers had acted in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291. He claimed that unauthorized construction on his property was not properly addressed, resulting in financial loss and mental harassment.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 862 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
- He sought three principal reliefs: (A) direction to take action against officers, (B) compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for mental harassment, and (C) status quo on the disputed premises.
- Concurrently, a regular civil suit (No. 921 of 2025) was pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, on the same subject matter.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) enforcement of Supreme Court directives against municipal officers; (2) monetary compensation for mental harassment; and (3) interim status quo on the property.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to claim monetary compensation for mental harassment when an adequate alternate remedy - namely, a pending civil suit - is available.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the municipal authorities had flouted binding Supreme Court directions on demolition procedures, thereby violating fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21. He contended that the gravity of the violation justified invoking writ jurisdiction even if a civil suit was pending, as the state’s failure to act amounted to administrative illegality.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a detailed counter-affidavit but relied on the procedural posture: the existence of a pending civil suit rendered the writ petition redundant. The counsel emphasized that compensation claims for tortious or contractual wrongs fall squarely within the domain of civil courts and cannot be converted into constitutional remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the well-established doctrine that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not a substitute for ordinary remedies. It cited State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nawaz Khan and K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to reaffirm that courts must decline writ petitions when an equally efficacious remedy exists.
"The petitioner has not exhausted the alternate remedy available to him through the pending civil suit. To permit such a petition would encourage forum shopping and dilute the sanctity of civil adjudication."
The Court noted that prayer clause (B) for Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation was purely a civil claim for damages, which could be adjudicated in the pending suit. The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of this claim.
Regarding prayer clause (A), the Court held that while the petitioner had not formally submitted a representation to the Municipal Council seeking action against officers, the petition could be treated as such. The Court directed the Chief Officer to decide the matter within eight weeks, applying the principles laid down in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291.
The Court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 is not a tool for enforcing private civil rights, especially when statutory or civil remedies are available.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s claim for compensation was dismissed. The Court treated the petition as a representation for action against officers and directed the Municipal Council to decide it within eight weeks. No interim relief was granted, and the status quo was not mandated. The Court held that monetary compensation claims must be pursued through civil litigation, not writ petitions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternate Remedy Bars Writ Jurisdiction
- Practitioners must first exhaust civil remedies before approaching High Courts under Article 226 for monetary claims
- Filing a writ petition merely to expedite compensation is now clearly impermissible
- Courts will routinely dismiss petitions where a civil suit is pending on identical facts
Compensation Claims Are Civil, Not Constitutional
- Claims for mental harassment, emotional distress, or financial loss arising from private disputes cannot be converted into fundamental rights violations
- Article 21 does not extend to private tortious claims unless state action is directly violative of life or liberty
- Practitioners should draft civil suits to include claims for damages, not rely on writs for monetary relief
Representation Can Be Treated as Formal Complaint
- Even if a petitioner fails to submit a formal representation, courts may treat a writ petition as one
- This provides a procedural safeguard for citizens seeking accountability from public authorities
- Practitioners should ensure such representations are clearly articulated in pleadings to avoid dismissal
