The petition seeking writ relief under Article 226 was rejected as the petitioner had an available alternate remedy for redressal of grievances, and interference was not warranted in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition stands rejected with liberty to avail of alternate remedy for redressal of grievance.
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.
wp7534.14
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7534 OF 2014
UDAYRAJ RAMCHANDRA BOBADE PATIL VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. G.J. Pahilwan h./f Mr. R.V. Gore AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. V.H. Dighe
CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND
V. K. JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2014
P.C. :-
It would be open for the petitioner to avail of alternate remedy
for redressal of his grievance. No interference is called for in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition stands rejected with liberty as aforesaid.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
rlj/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in the presence of an available alternate remedy.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Udayraj Ramchandra Bobade Patil
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Borse
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
