Article 226 interim protection cannot be granted as final relief after writ refusal for alternative remedy.

Article 226 relief is unavailable where a writ petition is declined on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy, because the writ proceeding then ends and no final relief survives for grant. Interim protection such as stay or status quo cannot be issued merely to enable the petitioner to approach another forum, since interim relief is only ancillary to substantive adjudication on merits. The settled principle applied is that interim protection cannot operate as the sole or final relief after the court refuses to entertain the writ petition. The limited reach of writ jurisdiction in favour of an available statutory remedy is therefore reaffirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition can be disposed of by declining to entertain it on the ground of an efficacious alternative remedy while still granting interim protection to the petitioner; and whether such a course is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order reiterates that once the High Court, after applying its mind, refuses to entertain a writ petition because an efficacious alternative remedy is available and has not been pursued, the writ proceeding comes to an end. In that situation, no final relief survives for grant in the writ petition. Interim protection by way of stay of the impugned order or maintenance of status quo cannot be granted merely to facilitate recourse to the alternate forum, because such relief is only ancillary to substantive relief on merits. The order treats this position as controlled by the settled principle that interim relief cannot be used as the only and final relief under Article 226.

Conclusion: Such interim protection is impermissible when the writ petition itself is not entertained on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, and the writ proceedings must terminate upon that refusal.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition was not entertained, and the judgment affirms the limited reach of Article 226 where the High Court declines writ jurisdiction in favour of an alternative statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim relief cannot be granted as the sole or final relief under Article 226 after the Court declines to entertain the writ petition for availability of an efficacious alternative remedy; such relief must be merely ancillary to substantive adjudication.

---