Dismissed

Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2012WP/2066/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a stay of departmental proceedings pending criminal trial. Respondent argued lack of alternative remedy. Court held the bar under Section 20 is not absolute; however, petition was rejected directing the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected and the petitioner was directed to avail the alternate remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal Vs Union of India and Anr. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2012 “Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal Vs. Union of India and another”

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

Mr. Anand Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 26TH MARCH, 2012.

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

1] The petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for staying the departmental proceeding pendente-lite of the criminal proceedings.

¶10

2] A preliminary objection is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available by way of an original application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and as such, this court should not entertain the present petition.

¶11

3] Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the specific bar under Section 20, the petitioner would not be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned tribunal, unless a period of 6 months has not lapsed from the date on which the petitioner has made a representation.

¶12

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2012 “Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal Vs. Union of India and another”

¶15

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶16

¶17

4] Perusal of Section 20 would reveal that the bar for entertaining an application by the tribunal unless the other remedies are exhausted is not hard and fast rule. The word used in the section is "ordinarily". It can thus be seen that the discretion is vested in the tribunal to entertain the original application, inspite of non exhausting alternate remedy available to the petitioner.

¶18

5] In that view of the matter we find that the objection raised by the respondents needs to be considered. Petition is rejected relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy available to him in law.

¶19

grt/-

Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Uddavrao Garkal v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Gramvikas Education Society Shirasmani Dist Jalgaon Thr Member Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshal Motilal Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gaurav Shaikshanik and Samajik Bhauddeshiya Vikas Mandal, Mhasadi Thru Secretary Depak Tukaram Deor Vs the Member Secretary and Ors.

Shivdas Ukandrao Sonule Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dinkar Dayaram Patil Vs Nilesh Ranjit Bhoite and Ors.

Dinkar Dayaram Patil Vs Nilesh Ranjit Bhoite and Ors.