Petitioner challenged an adjudication order via writ petition. Court held an alternative efficacious remedy (appeal) was available. No case made for interference under extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition rejected with liberty to pursue other remedies.
Writ petition rejected; liberty given to petitioner to prosecute alternative remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
mgn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2009
Mr.Rajendra Bhutada
..Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & Ors...Respondents
Mr.B.J. Raichandani, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Kantharia with Mr. Rajinder Kumar for the
respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER , 2009
P.C.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition the order
for adjudication has been passed. It will be open to
the petitioner to prefer an Appeal against the said
order. As the petitioner has an alternative efficacious
remedy, in our opinion, no case is made out for
interference under our extra ordinary jurisdiction.
Hence Petition rejected. Liberty to the petitioner to
prosecute the remedy which they may have in law.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction is maintainable when an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal exists.
Whether the rejection of a writ petition requires liberty to prosecute alternative remedies.
Mr. Rajendra Bhutada
Union of India & Ors
F.I. Rebello
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court