The Bombay High Court held that no writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was warranted as the petitioner had an alternate remedy via the Civil Court to determine compensation for an acquired well. The petition was disposed with liberty to seek alternate remedies.
Writ petition disposed with liberty to avail alternate 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.
wp9812.12.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9812 OF 2012
Datta s/o Eknath Dhamne
.. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. D.A. Bide, advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2015.
PER COURT :
wp9812.12.doc
2
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail alternate remedies, if available
in law.
( V. K. JADHAV ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 given the availability of an alternate remedy for the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner had an option to refer the matter to the Civil Court to determine the compensation for the acquired well.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Datta s/o Eknath Dhamne
The State of Maharashtra & others
R.M. Borde
V. K. JadHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
