The High Court accepted the respondents' preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, with points kept open.
Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; points kept open.
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.
1 wp6837.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6837 OF 2014
[Parmanand s/o Bhaulal Upwanshi .vs. Dayaramji Tukaram Agashe and others]
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.Y. Kapgate, counsel for respondent no.6, Shri S.M. Bhagde, AGP for respondent no.7.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 15, 2015.
Heard.
The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner in an appeal under Section 39 (3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 before the State Government. It is stated that, without availing the alternate remedy, the petitioner has approached this court.
By upholding the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, we dispose of the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The points raised in the writ petition are, however, kept open.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulande
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 39(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
Parmanand
Dayaramji Tukaram Agashe
Vasanti A. Naik
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
