Dismissed

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2011WP/8578/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition was objected to as maintainable on the ground that an alternate remedy existed. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, noting its proximity and the principle of self-restraint.

What did the court decide?

petition rejected and interlocutors relegated to the alternate remedy of filing an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and Anr. Vs the State of Mah… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 8578.2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8578 OF 2011

¶4

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and anr. PETITIONERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. D.B. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

.....

¶10

 DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2012

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

1. Heard.

¶13

2. The Petition is objected to by the learned

¶14

A.G.P. on the ground that the petitioners have an
alternate efficacious remedy available to him in law.
Shri Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that merely because alternate remedy is
available to the petitioners, it cannot be a ground
for not entertaining the Petition.

¶15

3. It is a settled principle of law that non-
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is a rule of self-restraint and

¶16

(2) WP 8578.2011

¶17

that this Court would not be precluded from
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India inspite of availability of
alternate remedy, if the facts of the case so
warrant.

¶18

4.The alternate remedy available to the

¶19

petitioners is by way of an Original Application
before the learned Maharashtra Administrative

¶20

Tribunal. The Tribunal is functioning at Aurangabad
itself and is situated at a distance of hardly 4 kms

¶21

from this building. We do not see any reason as to
why the petitioners should not be asked to have
recourse to the alternate remedy available to them in
law and as to why this Court should exercise extra-
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Petition is therefore

¶22

rejected, relegating the petitioners to the alternate
remedy available to them in law.

¶23

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
arp/

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Sakharam Fadat and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Subhashrao Bhoyer Vs Manohar Bhagat and Ors.

Suresh Subhashrao Bhoyer Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Vishnu Haribhau Palve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrawan Onkar Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Panditrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Zafar Shaikh Afsar Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.