LI Network
Published on: 02 October, 2023 at 19:15 IST
The Karnataka High Court clarified that a writ of prohibition cannot be issued in anticipation on par with anticipatory bail granted by criminal courts.
The Court emphasized that such a writ can only be issued when there is an actual infringement of rights or a well-founded apprehension of infringement.
The case involved a petition seeking a writ of prohibition against the Respondent authorities to prevent them from issuing notices and orders to the Petitioners, who were landowners.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, dismissed the petition filed by M/S Askins Biofuel Private Ltd, a private limited company engaged in signal, sugarcane, and allied industrial activities.
The Petitioners sought to prohibit the Respondent Authorities from creating obstacles regarding their production activities. The Court noted that the prayers in the petition were broad and, if granted, would practically render statutory functionaries dysfunctional.
The Court observed that the petition was anticipatory in nature, based on the Petitioners’ past experiences. However, the Court clarified that the right to sue arises only when there is an actual accrual of the right asserted and its infringement. An unequivocal threat to infringe the right by the opposite party must be substantiated for such a writ to be issued.
The Court underscored that a writ of prohibition is akin to an order of injunction in the realm of private law. It cannot be initiated on an inchoate cause of action.
The Court held that there cannot be a writ of prohibition against the discharge of official functions granted under statutes unless there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the rights of the petitioner.
In summary, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the writ of prohibition must be based on an actual infringement of rights or a well-founded apprehension of infringement. Anticipation alone is not sufficient grounds for issuing such a writ.
