A writ petition is not maintainable against a remand order causing no prejudice.

The petitioners claimed that petitioner No. 2 had purchased Tendu leaves from the Madhya Pradesh State Minor Forest Produce (Trade & Development) Cooperative Federation and transported them in petitioner No. 1’s truck under a valid Transit Pass, purchase invoice, GST invoice, bill of lading and vehicle documents.

The truck was intercepted and seized by the Forest Department on 15 January 2025 under Forest Offence Report No. 708/23 on the allegation of illegal transportation of Tendu leaves, and confiscation proceedings were initiated.

The petitioners’ appeal before the Conservator of Forests was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 2 July 2026, fixing the matter for 14 July 2026.

The petitioners challenged the notice, the remand proceedings, the seizure and confiscation proceedings, and sought release of the truck and Tendu leaves under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against an order remanding the matter to the competent authority for fresh adjudication.

Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned Show Cause Notice and ongoing confiscation proceedings when the petitioners have a full opportunity to present their documents and objections before the remanded authority.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to quashing of the seizure and confiscation proceedings and immediate release of the truck and Tendu leaves.

The Court applied the principle governing judicial review under Article 226 that an order merely remanding a matter for fresh consideration ordinarily does not warrant writ interference, particularly where no final rights have been determined and the affected party retains a full opportunity of hearing.

The Court relied on Anant Singh and Another v. Govind and Others, reported in 1999 RN 99, which held that a remand order causes no prejudice when the parties can contest the matter in the fresh enquiry and should not be challenged merely to avoid such enquiry.

The Court also proceeded on the principles of natural justice and availability of an effective opportunity before the competent authority in the confiscation proceedings.

The Court noted that the appellate authority had only remanded the matter for fresh decision and that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to that remand.

Since the remand order had not finally determined the legality of the seizure, transportation or confiscation, the petitioners’ substantive rights remained open.

The Court held that the petitioners could place their Transit Pass, purchase documents, invoices and vehicle papers before the authority and raise all available objections during the fresh proceedings.

Applying Anant Singh, the Court found that the remand caused no demonstrated prejudice and that the petitioners could not seek writ intervention merely to avoid the statutory enquiry.

Consequently, no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out.

It declined to quash the Show Cause Notice, seizure or confiscation proceedings and refused to direct release of the truck and Tendu leaves.

The petition was dismissed as being without merit, with no order as to costs.