Writ jurisdiction need not be exercised over an inconsequential subsistence-allowance discrepancy.

The petitioner Co-operative Bank challenged an order of the competent authority under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, awarding the second respondent ₹1,11,211.49 as subsistence allowance for the period from 1 October 2024 to 1 April 2025

The Bank contended that the employee was reinstated on 29 March 2025 and was entitled to full salary from that date, making the allowance calculation through 1 April legally incorrect

The Government Pleader submitted that, at most, the disputed calculation concerned subsistence allowance for 30 and 31 March 2025, and that the error did not warrant interference under Article 226

Whether the alleged error in calculating subsistence allowance through 1 April 2025 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the Court should decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction because the alleged error concerned only two days’ subsistence allowance and was therefore trivial

Article 226 confers discretionary jurisdiction, and the Court may decline to interfere where the alleged injury is too trivial to warrant relief

The maxim de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles—may apply where the disputed matter is too inconsequential to justify judicial intervention

The Court referred to its application of the principle in P.K. Rajesh v. Kariyil Gopi & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 5600, and to the discussion in Broom’s Legal Maxims concerning refusal to retry cases involving small damages

Even if the Bank’s contention about the reinstatement date were accepted, the only additional subsistence allowance payable would relate to 30 and 31 March 2025

The Court treated that difference as too trivial to justify exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, applying the maxim de minimis non curat lex

dismissed the writ petition in limine