Writ petition is not maintainable when efficacious statutory appeals and interim protections are actively pending.

The petitioner, a mining lease holder granted permission under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code to store overburden material, challenged a communication dated May 14, 2026, issued by the Collector, Balaghat.

This communication ordered the cessation of mining operations and deactivated the E-Khanij portal.

These actions followed a history of administrative orders—initially by the Collector and subsequently upheld by the Divisional Commissioner—directing the removal of material dumps.

The petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, which granted an interim stay on May 19, 2026.

The petitioner approached the High Court via Article 226, alleging that the respondents were ignoring the stay and continuing to enforce the stoppage of work.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when a statutory appeal regarding the same subject matter is already pending and an interim order has been granted by the appellate authority.

2. Whether the administrative action taken by the Collector after the initiation of the appellate process constitutes an issue that should be resolved by the high-level revenue authority rather than the High Court.

The court applied the principle of "Alternative Efficacious Remedy" under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which dictates that discretionary writ jurisdiction should not typically be exercised when a statutory mechanism is already in motion.

The court also relied on the administrative hierarchy established under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, recognizing the Board of Revenue as the competent authority to enforce or interpret its own interim orders and oversee consequential administrative actions.

The court reasoned that since the Board of Revenue was already seized of the matter and had actively exercised its jurisdiction by granting interim protection, any subsequent grievance—including the deactivation of the portal or the alleged violation of the stay—falls within that board's domain.

The court noted that entertaining the writ would facilitate "parallel proceedings" before two different forums on the same facts, which would undermine the statutory framework of the Land Revenue Code and disrupt the orderly administration of justice.

The court emphasized that the Board of Revenue possesses the full legal competency to address the petitioner’s specific complaints regarding the May 14 communication.

The High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, to address the grievances regarding the stoppage of operations and the E-Khanij portal, with directions to the Board to decide such application in accordance with the law.